Just ordered David Hicks' book

[Smoke Jaguar]

From what I could glean, it does have a pretty good explanation of why, and he was caught by bounty hunters who offered him up to the 'coalition of the willing' when he found himself on the wrong side of the border. Anyway, this is all why I want to read it. The US wouldn't have let him go if they had something on him. They wouldn't have kept him there that long without charge. He's talking about what happened inside against the will of the US and there is now some hooplah over who gets proceeds. I don't care. It's time we heard his side. The ends does not justify the means and in this case there was no satisfactory end for anyone - a life was degraded and there were no REAL charges, just some charges concocted to get him OUT OF Guantanamo; charges that never were laid while he was there waiting for the US to decide what to do with him.
We need to hear his story. It's relevant because it could have been anyone's relative or child. Not just for terrorism, but for any activity that one country considers illegal and another doesn't.
Anyway, I'll let you know when I do get my hands on it!
ETA: late post, Kaz! I just read the link. I get my back up when I read about people banging on about 'consequences for actions', just as an automatic response. It is a punitive, compassion-free way to look at humans and their actions. We don't do things all the time because of their consequences in the future. Heaven help those of us who just don't act with such forethought! I know I don't always. That article sure does smack of moral high horse. The other thing I question is the unquestioned use of the term 'terrorism'. We all seem to think we know what it is, and give it a label because politicians do. Terrorism itself, as a term, does its own version of 'glossing over' - it glosses over a whole history of an area, the subordination to colonial forces and, more recently, capitalist and Western Values subordination. Sure, I don't agree with a lot of things that happen in a lot of countries, the way women and children are treated, for example. But the war was and is not about the way women and children are treated. Let's be real - it's about access to a significant natural resource; oil.
So, the whole 'terrorism' thing, to me, can't even be covered in one book, let alone Hicks' book about his inhumane treatment whilst in unjust custody. That's just me