They're quite a pair, these two South Aussie boys- mercenaries abroad, serving in defence of the sovereign rulers of Afghanistan.  The differences between David Hicks and Robert Langdon start at the point where one man gets his government's assistance, and the other its castigation.  The one getting support has admitted to and been convicted of, shooting a co-worker four times in the head and chest, then tossing a grenade into the truck bearing the body in order to disguise his actions.  The one who was repatriated for further incarceration after a plea bargain by Cheney was never even been accused of having committed a violent act.

I can't help wonder if the recent public silence about David Hicks might be due to a little cultural guilt?  I t's only because Hicks'  former lawyer Stephen Kenny is taking "compensatory funds" to Kabul for Langdon that David's name has re-entered the media's radar.  Otherwise there appears to be nobody interested in the fact that The Commonwealth of Australia and the State of South Australia are both guilty of knowingly incarcerating David Hicks when he was at the time of his arrest not guilty of any crime under Australian law.  Legally, you'd like to think it was "the elephant in the room" in any discussions of legal ethics, something that a display of moral integrity might rectify.  But no.. it's old news, and too hard.

There's an easy way to demonstrate impartiality in clemency when dealing with people in such situations- Australia could imprison Robert Langdon for whatever time the Afghan court system sentences.

You get the whiff, reading the January reports in theOz about the matter, that the Australian Government might be interceding not so much out of concern for the ex-soldier than a need to minimise the negative publicity of an Afghan Murdering Aussie Mercenary.  The watering-down of the case details in reports of Kenny's departure today suggest that the approach is working.

Just so we're all clear on what Langdon's confessed to have done, here's a brief extract from the January 27 Australian [1]:

In court, Langdon, who was the expatriate team leader, admitted killing Karim but said he fired in self-defence because the Afghan guard was reaching for his pistol.

"He reached across, and I am ex-military, so it was like bang-bang-bang-bang.............................

Langdon's claims of diminished responsibility were undermined by an admission that he had tried to cover up the crime by throwing a hand grenade into the truck containing Karim's body.

Langdon ordered the convoy's Nepalese and Afghan guards to fire into the air to fake a Taliban attack in which it would appear Karim had been a victim.

After telling the guards to continue on to their destination, Langdon returned to Kabul, emptied $US10,000 from his local bank account and bought a ticket to Dubai, but he was arrested at the airport as he tried to board the flight.

 It's not a great look for our country when a soldier who's been highly trained at the taxpayers expense utilises his skill to murder a native ot the country that Austrlalia's armed forces have invaded and occupied.   The Afghanis certainly won't be impressed, and hopefully neither will many Australians.

The care of the media management in this scenario suggests an awareness that public support for continued Australian participation in Afghanistan is tenous, and possibily a signifigant federal election issue. 

The irony, from a Sourh Australian viewpoint, is that while it's widely known that Adelaide boy Hicks is hated in the country electorates, the support for  the ex-digger Port Augusta boy La ngdon will undoubtedly be huge.  This will no doubt be a major factor in any decision Rudd makes as polling day looms. 

Some may call such an approach democracy at its finest, but if you consider this situation a propoganda sideshow in the prolonged invasion of a foreign state, everything starts to look more than a little tacky.