I can't think of any reason other than genuine "guilt" why David Hicks might have pleaded guilty today

Well, now we know that justice is going to be served. David Hicks has finally pleaded guilty, ending the many long years of tedious, back breaking hard work by prosecutors trying to invent a charge they could lay against him and set up a court system so dodgy that they could get a conviction using evidence any ordinary court would refuse to hear as being non-credible and thoroughly flawed ("hey, sure that witness only told us what we wanted to hear to make us stop waterboarding him and he's subsequently told everyone that the statement was a pack of lies; but IT'S WRITTEN ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER HE SIGNED so, hey, that's good enough evidence to convict someone isn't it?") and thereby confirming that inasmuch as anyone subjected to long years of extra-judicial imprisonment with no hope of ever getting a real trial and just being desperate to get out of there would plead guilty just to get home he's "guilty".

Take that, you lefties who carped and criticised at every step of the way. Hicks is innocent, you cried, just because we hadn't charged him with anything. Hicks isn't going to get a fair trial, you cried, just because when we did charge him we didn't allow him the fairly basic legal protections to which defendants are entitled as a necessary part of receiving a fair trial and insisted on holding a trial wherein many of the long-established and fairly basic rules of evidence were being thrown out the window whenever inconvenient to the prosecution.

Well, he's admitted it to get out of that hell-hole of legal limbo so YOU'RE ALL WRONG. Hicks is a terrorist after all. And you were defending him! Be grateful we're not charging YOU lot with "material support for terrorism".

We could, you know. After five years in Guantanamo you'd probably plead guilty too.

ELSEWHERE: Wise righty "MK" over at "AWH" predicts that "leftists will be carping about the unfairness of the trial and all that". I bet they will. They're shameless about that crap.

SOME PROFOUND COMMENTARY from Federal Justice Minister David Johnston:

"Now when you plead guilty, as an old courtroom sparrer like myself knows, when you plead guilty you put yourself in the dock and you don't go home that night."

Because if Hicks hadn't pleaded guilty, "going home" some night this year was definitely on offer.

And whilst Davey's promoting himself as "an old courtroom sparrer", what're his views about the rules of evidence as practised in the real courts of Australia and the US, given that they were to be abandoned in this "fair trial" offered to Hicks? Optional extras that just get in the way? Unnecessary hurdles on the path to convictions? And if the GB system is so just and fair, is Davey going to propose implementing it here? If not, why not? He is Federal Justice Minister after all. I can guarantee convictions would SKYROCKET if we turned our prisons into mini-Gitmos and permitted Australian police to waterboard suspects.

JOKES AND WEIGHT: Andrew Bolt quotes Rupert's other paper reporting that "[David Hicks'] first words to court were in fact a joke and on a couple of occasions he joked with his US military counsel Major Michael Mori." And he's apparently "gained considerable weight". TALK ABOUT RELEVANT.

Any man who can make a mild joke at a time of great tension and nervousness is obviously being treated well by his captors, and is also probably a terrorist. As for the weight? Well, there's no other conclusion that can be drawn than this one from one of Andy's commenters:

What a joke. The Left’s little hero, tortured in the Lazi-Boy recliner, stuffing his face the whole time with chips.

Man, Guantanamo Bay really does sound awesome. I'm booking my next holiday there RIGHT NOW.

STILL WITH THE FATTY And Timmeh Blair joins Andy in wallowing in the Porky Hicks line ("porky" being relative). Who'd have thought that "fattening" the guy up before his day in court could be argued by even the most outrageous hack to be in any way significant? (Australian prosecuting authorities take note.) While we're waffling on about "fair trials" and "the rule of law", Rupert's mouthpieces are confining their analysis to the real legal issues...