We humans have the gift of language, yet too often we demonstrate embarrassingly stunted conceptual skills, such as when everything else must quickly be compared to something else with which we have a passing familiarty.
It's exactly like when film reviews insist on helping us make a decision, as if we are imbeciles or five years old: "if you like Film A you will like Film B" - even if the films have nothing more in common than being made in Hollywood.
Even some of the best minds publicly jumping to the defence of Julian Assange have dragged out the "like David Hicks" analogy.
The two cases are not fungible. Not in action or intent, moral or political context, nor legal circumstance.
Goodness knows the two individuals are sitting at extremes from each other no matter the linear scale you'd like to nominate.
You need to scratch around to invent any scrap of comparability. Assange and Wikileaks would be best served if people move on from the analogy. Quickly!