Good catch. The SMH points out that Howard - who once insisted Hicks could not be returned to Australia and tried under "retrospective laws" - is now happy for him to be tried by the US government under a retrospective law:
The Howard Government has refused to bring Mr Hicks back to Australia for trial on the basis it was unwilling to try him under retrospective laws - something it would need to do as there were no applicable terrorism laws in place at the time of his alleged offences.Make of it what you will, folks. I'm going outside to look for a bucket.
Mr Howard repeated this yesterday, saying "we do not believe the passage of retrospective criminal law in this country is appropriate".
But he said "once somebody goes overseas they lose the protection of Australian law".
Pressed on the appropriateness of the US using retrospective laws to try Mr Hicks, Mr Howard then said: "I don't equate what the US is doing with the passage of a retrospective criminal law in Australia. I don't accept the analogy."