Who do you believe?
Michael Mori, the military lawyer appointed to David Hicks, has spoken out saying David is very depressed and is not in a good way. John Howard, on the other hand, 'has been told' that during a consular visit 2 weeks ago, that all was well with David Hicks and there is nothing to worry about.
Who do you believe in this instance, the lawyer or John Howard? The lawyer is, well, a lawyer and usually can't be trusted as far as you can kick them. And he is a grunt. John Howard's reputation isn't much better. First 'he was told' that children were thrown overboard (turned out to be a lie), he was also 'told' that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (also a lie), he wasn't 'told' that the Australian Wheat Board was paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein (inquiry still in progress), etc. For some reason, I just can't trust that little Johnny is being 'told' the right things.
In the end it is all just the chit chat on the real issue. That is, how can someone be held for 4 years in solitary confinement and not be charged? Is there something seriously wrong with the whole idea of justice if this has dragged on for so long?