There is growing fury in Oz re Hicks and I agree with it. I don't give a toss if he is guilty or not, who the fuck is The States to illegally imprison a citizen of one of it's staunchest allies? Hah! Well, our fawning Prime Minister, John (Deputy Dawg) Howard certainly has had a lot to do with it. Now this slug is noticing polls leading up to OUR elections, that show this issue is pushing Aussie buttons and he's changing tune. See this
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/cynical-selfinterest-is-the-ruling-principle/2007/03/06/1173166696943.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

"""Well, now that Hicks's case is actually going to trial, the government is considering charging Hicks' lawyer with "using contemptuous language towards the president, vice-president, and secretary of defense."""

Bullshit. Nobody has suggested anyone was considering charging Mori and the prosecutor alleged to have made this threat has specifically denied that he did and that neither he nor anyone else is considering it.

"""Major Michael Mori of Massachusetts, who has been criticized by the military for repeatedly traveling to Australia to speak out against Hicks' treatment and taking part in events like vigils on Hicks' behalf"""

Yes he has been criticised for that. Just as Mori has criticised the prosecutors, even directly on live TV. It's what lawyers do. What media outlets do is spice up hypotheticals for the purpose of having a slightly better angle than the hundred other stories on the same subject.

""" [Mori] is saying that he may resign from the case because he can no longer speak out for Hicks' without endangering his own legal status."""

Is he ? Where did he suggest this was the case ? This would be suprising given that you've claimed this a full day after Mori undoubtedly would have heard the only suggested source of this threat has categorically ruled that out and denied any such threat ever occurring. A claim which lasted less than 24 hours before being written off as BS media speculation by the source.

It would be a suprising development if this very tenacious lawyer who has stuck by his client this far would consider ceasing his involvement based solely on a newspaper's interpretation of what prosecutors have said which has been immediately contradicted, denied and ruled out by prosecutors at the earliest possible opportunity.

Do we think Cindy Sheehan would stop asking Bush for an apology if a newspaper simply reported she got one rather than this actually occurring ? What about if Bush also said that never happened ? Would that make it more plausible or less you think ?

If Major Mori did in fact use "contemptuous language" he may well be proved not guilty if he was speaking factually.

Here is a video of David Hicks when he appeared on MTV's Cribs

http://one.revver.com/watch/210614
or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITOAPDESRUM