A Cuban proposition. The New York Times reports that David Hicks, a 27-year-old Australian drifter apprehended in Afghanistan in late 2001 and imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay as a suspected Taliban supporter, could very well be released if the U.S. and Australian authorities could only figure out whether they want to keep him or take him back. Hicks is in his way the 21st century version of The Man Without a Country:

In one sense, Mr. Hicks's case represents the quandary that the roughly 660 men detained at Guantánamo pose for the Bush administration. Although 22 were recently released and a handful of others may soon face military tribunals as members of the Qaeda terrorist network, the status of those in the vast middle remains unresolved, which has led lawyers and human-rights advocates to argue that they are being held in violation of international law.

Why doesn't Cuban leader Fidel Castro offer sanctuary to the hapless Hicks and other unfortunates who may be ready for release but, for one legal, politiical or diplomaic reason or another, are marooned on the Gitmo gulag.?

It would be a kind of reverse Mariel. It would be seen by the world as a humane gesture and perhaps would even make up a little -- a very little -- for Castro's recent deplorable decision to execute the three hijackers and lock away scores of dissenters. Moreover, at least from the wily Castro's point of view, it would have the added merit of embarrassing the hell out of the U.S. -- though not President Bush, who has no shame.

Most laudably, it would be in keeping with Cuba's hard-earned and well deserved reputation as a nation with heart and a people with soul.

Think about it. All they'd have to do is open the gates and let them walk out to freedom.