Well, we’ve had the backflip from the Libs on climate change, despite the fact that they don’t believe it (Nick Minchin is just the only one silly enough to say so in public).
And it seems we’ll get the backflip on David Hicks as well, with the government reportedly working to get Hicks home, conveniently before the federal election.
From a political standpoint, I can’t help but be reminded of 2001 and petrol excise.
What else is he going to ditch between now and the visit to the Governor-General? Substantive change on WorkChoices is pretty unlikely, but would he be tempted to declare victory in Iraq and start bringing troops back? We know Johnny loves his alliance, but surely he loves his own political skin more.
I tend to agree, Robert. Howard is quite capable of cutting and running from almost anything, with the possible exception of WorkChoices, because his beliefs on IR seem to be ones he strongly holds. The difficutly with Iraq, for him, is that it would be the mother of all backflips. The other constraint might be that it would be difficult for him to maintain his “national security” advantage over Labor if he pulled troops out, but on the other hand, it’s probably disappearing anyway. It’ll all be down to the polls from our fearless Dear Leader.
The current discourses generated by Alexander Downer, Peter Costello and John Howard collectively point to the Coalition reading electoral mood on David Hicks. It suggests that they will make a variety of postures in the public square, such as maintaining:
1. “We are pressing the US to go to trial in 2007″ (hoped for outcome: we are doing something voters so don’t lose faith in us).
2. “Mr Hicks is tainted because of his alleged activities with the enemies of the USA” (hoped for outcome: sleep tight tonight your government is watching out for terrorists and we are the only government that can protect the citizens from such bad-guys).
3. “Remember the war on terror now on in Iraq is central to our safety and security” (hoped for outcome: forget Hicks we are on a righteous crusade).
Although the prospect is for David Hicks to return to Australia it is at present seemingly premised on the idea that he will be found guilty and therefore be kept in prison away from media and public scrutiny.
If David Hick’s allegations about maltreatment in detention do hold true and he had free access to media to air his story then the fallout on the Coalition would be like the Wheat Board scandal, the Tampa, weapons-of-mass-destruction in Iraq, terrorists disguised as refugees on boats, children overboard, and so on.
Such a fallout is in Liberal thought “unthinkable” and so Hicks has to be sequestered (like carbon from coal) lest the electorate spits the dummy on the Liberals as the privileged party destined to always govern.
Howard may well backflip on any number of issues. The problem is that most of these issues, most obviously Hicks, Iraq and climate change are really just symptomatic of a deeper problem. However important they may be in the grand scale of things (and nothing could be more important than climate change) they are gaining traction because the electorate is feeling economic pain. The interest rate increases are hurting (and though they disporportionately effect Labor voters) the soaring rental prices aren’t helping either. This means that, regardless of the low official inflation figure, significant sections of the electorate are dramatically worse off. This leads to a generalised discontent which magnifies every problem for the government. Even if they solve the individual problems, the generalised discontent will still be there.
But if it gets Hicks home, then its all for the good.
It is clear that Hicks is a standard enemy combatant who ought to be returned to Australia and set free after giving his parole. Detaining Hicks in this disgraceful way has harmed and continues to harm the war effort. He ought to have been held as a bog standard POW and when he offered not to return to the battle field released back to Australia to get on with his life.
Five years is not the main issue IMV, the issue is that he has not been afforded the POW standards that he was entitled to as a soldier fighting for the Taliban. Australians were and are entitled to go overseas and join the army of the lawful govermnet of a country. The Taliban were the recognised government. You can join the US army if you want. The Taliban subcontracted training activities to the Al Qaeda group so it is no surprise that Hicks was trained by them. Everybody was as I understand it.
The war in Afganistan was ended with the establishment of the new government and there was no justification for holding him past that point provided he agreed not to return to fighting.
This issue shows that there is always struggle within united fronts. The ruling elites in both Australia and the US have demonstrated a decided lack of wisdom and are less thorough going democrats than Tony Blair has shown himself to be in handling the issue years ago! Well done Blair.
T’were well this backflip were done t’were well it were done quickly.
Unfortunately when he returns further relevations will again damage the war effort and that is the price that the Iraqi people must pay for this failure of the two western ruling elites. Progressives ought to work to seperate the two issues and prevent the ALP that would abandon the Iraqi peoples from linking them.
A nice example from Robert Bollard of vulgar economic determinism. A glance at even recent history shows how wrong this methodology can be and that there is not a neat fit between the economic climate and widespread support or lack therefore for a range of social and political issues.
Patrickm - to be regarded as a POW, a combatant first has to be operating within the definition of a legal combatant under the defintions of the Geneva Conventions. Hicks, the Taliban and Al Queda were not, and are not, operating within the defintions of the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, Hicks does not, and should not, be treated as a POW.
If you can prove that the Taliban operated in a manner that is within the defintion of the Geneva Convention then I am wrong. So far I have seen no evidence to suggest the Taliban operates under the Geneva Conventions.
So that means… what? That he has no rights, can be abducted by a party with which he is apparently not “at war” with under the terms of the Geneva conventions, be handed over from nation to nation and effectively treated as property, presumed guilty before being proven so, be treated in a fashion that his lawyers claim amounts to torture over a period of five years without having his alleged crimes tried, and then when it becomes convenient, be tried under the terms of a parallel “legal” system, which under certain circumstances admits evidence gained through treatment that amounts to torture?
Is that what it means?
I note Razor’s rebuttal remarks to Patrick above concerning David Hicks and al-Qaeda and the Taliban vis-a-vis the Geneva Convention.
One difficulty here is assuming that the Geneva Convention has to be sidelined in the first place in the “war on terror”. One has to first of all concur with the Bush administration’s rhetoric on the war on terror, a point that needs careful discussion and reflection. Even allowing for the vocabulary on the war on terror, it is interesting surely that conventional forms of military action have ensued in Afghanistan and Iraq, even though it is admitted that al-Qaeda does not constitute a geo-political nation on whom one can “declare war”. As both Afghanistan and Iraq have been invaded by Coalition forces moving army divisions around using conventional weapons, the US has been applying basic military tactics in the field. There is a strong presumption then in favour of observing the Geneva Convention irrespective of whether it is acknowledged by the opposing side.
The US did not suddenly exclude the Geneva Convention from applying when it unilaterally invaded Panama to deal with Manuel Noriega’s hideous regime nor in the prosecution of the first Gulf War.
On reflection it might be worth recalling that the Allied forces in the Pacific theatre of World War Two applied the Geneva Convention standards to those combatants who served the Japanese Imperial Forces (includes army, navy, air force and also the partisans who supported Japan). It can also be recalled that Japan did not care for the Geneva Convention when it launched its aggression in the Pacific theatre (and in China from 1931 onwards), and those POWs taken by the Japanese were subjected to acts of gross cruelty (witness the Burma railway, Changi prison, the shooting of Australian nurses on the ship the Vyner Brooke in 1942 as recounted by the survivor sister Vivian Bullwinkel, etc). It might also be recalled that while Japan launched its attack on the Pacific fleet at Pearl Harbour its actions on December 7th 1941 also yielded civilian casualties.
When the US declared war on Japan it did treat Japanese POWs under the Geneva Convention even though Japan had opted out of it. It might be said that Hiroshima and Nagasaki constituted “payback” for Pearl Harbour (itself a hideous sequence of acts). Yet the Japanese prisoners taken were not subjected to the sorts of “special conditions” currently laid down the US military commission holding Hicks and others at Guantanamo.
I think the basic point is that the US can pursue its objectives against the networks that comprise al-Qaeda while nonetheless treating those people it captures and detains under those optimal jural conditions that have long characterised the democratic freedoms so loftily espoused in the common-law traditions found in the USA, UK and Australia.
By way of analogy, as the Nazis perpetrated atrocities, would it logically and morally follow that the allies should have incarcerated Goering, Hess, Jodl, Donitz, Speer etc in the same conditions that civilians suffered under in Dachau and Buchenwald?
Whether it is a legal certainty that David Hicks is guilty or not, the conditions under which he has been detained in Guantanamo are very hard to justify on legal, military or moral grounds.
It might also be noted juridically that Australia and the US both ratified in 1948 the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Articles 6 - 11 of the civil and political rights contained in that declaration do apply to David Hicks. These provisos include-
art 5 - no torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment;
art 6 recognition as a person before the law;
art 7 equality before the law without discrimination and equal protection of the law;
art 8 right to effective legal remedy
art 9 no arbitrary arrest or detention
art 10 full equality for a fair public hearing by independent and impartial tribunal
art 11 no-one held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law at the time when it was committed.
Irrespective of “if” the Geneva Convention applies or is sidestepped, the USA nonetheless finds itself holding Hicks and others in a manner which is contrary to the UN Declaration. We might recall that this Declaration was drafted in the wake of the Nazi atrocities so that such things might not be repeated. I do not recall the US administration saying that the UN Declaration would be suspended for the duration of the war on terror.
The Germans murdered 3 million Soviet POWs during WW11 and said that they were under no obligation to treat those prisoners according to the Generva Conventions because the USSR was not a signatory to it.
That legally and morally specious argument was demolished at the Nuremberg war crime trials. The critical point then was that Germany was a signatory to the Geneva Conventions.
The critical point now is that United States is a signatory, which is why they have tried to create the fictional legal category of unlawful combatant. It is a nonsense.
The Geneva conventions were written to apply to conventional warfare, where the average soldier didn’t have much of a say in proceedings or much knowledge of future intentions etc. Terrorism is completely different and that is why it is called asymetric warfare. Information collection from terrorist is significantly more difficult and paramount by an order of magnitude in asymetric warfare compared to conventional warfare. In conventional warfare there are many sources of intelligence - this is demonstrated by the overwhelming successes of Gulf Wars I and II - no need to forcefully extract information from POWs when you are pounding the crapper out of them anyway.
For every moral argument raised about the WWII allies applying the Geneva Convention I can give you examples where it wasn’t (Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, not a whole lot of Japs made it back from capture by Aussies to be interogated . .. .).
War ain’t pretty and sometimes it is the meanest bastard in the fight who wins. It is a horrible calculus, but the fact is our current freedoms to debate this sort of thing over the internt has ben won by making horrible, tough decisions to occaisonally be the meanest bastard in the fight.
To argue that because of the harsh treatment of terrorists by the US and the Coaltion of the Willing, those forces are inhumane war criminals is outright hypocrisy and head-in-the-clouds idealism. The fact is that the vast majority of operations conducted by coalition forces is in accordance with the law of war - minimising civilian casualties, treating enemy casualties as your own, prosecuting our own troops who commit atrocities etc etc.
How many times does this have to be explained to RWDBs?
Under Convention 5 of the GCs an apprehended person is treated as a POW by default until a “competent tribunal” decides that s/he does not merit being accorded GC protections.
Hicks’s case has never been reviewed by a “competent tribunal”
Ergo, Hicks must be treated as a POW.
How difficult is that to understand?
Razor; you are simply wrong about the Taliban who were the government forces of Afghanistan; the US declared war on that force; therefore their soldiers (and any civilians who bore arms with them on the battlefield) are thus recognized belligerents and the US treated the Taliban as such. Of course some could still be criminals for other reasons, and further dealt with but that is another question.
Katz - the Geneva Conventions do not define what is a competent tribunal - as such the US has the right to decide. When he was captured he was initially treated as such, and then they, the competent tribunal of the US Government, decided he was not a POW under the definition of the Geneva Conventions.
Patrickm - the Taliban may have been the government - but there are a number of other qualifying factors including uniforms, open carriage of arms, clealry defined command authority - many of which the Taliban and Al Queda do not meet. Daoud was not necessarily part of the Taliban. My understanding is that he was more a member or affiliate of Al Quea, who certainly were seperate to the Taliban, and in no way operating under the GC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan_since_1992
The Taliban were only recognised by Pakistan and Iran and one other country (I forget which - might have been Yemen) as the legal government of Afghanistan. The previous regime continued to occupy Afghanistan’s UN seat until 2001
What fresh disingenuousness is this?
Razor, you’re making it up.
In fact the Bush clique declared that there was no doubt about Hicks’s and others’ status as illegal combatants and therefore declined to convene any tribunal.
If you’re going to pander for the Bush clique, at least tell relevant lies.
I wasn’t sure, so I hadn’t said but thanks to Mark - the idea that the Taliban was an internationally recognised government doesn’t really fly does it.
The logic of the Bush administration decision is fairly straight forward - the Taliban and Al Queada weren’t even close to qualifying for being considered under the GC, so why waste time establishing a tribunal?
“A nice example from Robert Bollard of vulgar economic determinism”
I confess to a certain vulgarity. But determinism?
I could refer you to Marx’s 1844 manuscripts for an unserstanding of alienation, or to Orwell’s essay (usually appended to Homage to Catalonia) where he puts the boot more eloquently than I ever could into those who decry the “materialism” of the working classes.
But I think I’ll save the argument for someone who has an argument to throw at me, rather than a label.
The solution is out there.
Big Gitmo Brother. Just wack webcams into Hicks and co’s cages, let the public watch and decide and then vote ‘em out or in.
OK, a interpanopticon carnival like that may be impractical for technical and security reasons, so why not instead pick by random ballot 12 average viewers, put ‘em in a room with Hicks and everyone arguing for and against him, then send them out to decide on his future. It sounds crazy I know but it just could work.
Katz - under Protcol 1 - assuming Hicks is not assessed as a POW by a competent tribunal (which the CSRT’s may or maynot be - ) but even if he had been:
Under Section 45
3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol.
reading Article 75 - especially this paragraph, it seems this is the paragraph that the Supreme Court ruled against in respect of the Military Commissions….
4. No sentence may be passed and no penalty may be executed on a person found guilty of a penal offence related to the armed conflict except pursuant to a conviction pronounced by an impartial and REGULARLY CONSTITUTED COURT respecting the generally recognized principles of regular judicial procedure.
The Supreme Court set aside its decision in respect of the CSRT’s because:
Interestingly, ” James Crisfield, the legal advisor to the Tribunals, offered his legal opinion, that CSRT “do not have the discretion to determine that a detainee should be classified as a prisoner of war — only whether the detainee satisfies the definition of “enemy combatant. Determining whether a captive should be classified as a prisoner of war is the purpose of a “competent tribunal.”
Article 75 - should have been the first and last words even for illegal/unlawful/enemy/belligerent/combatants - excepting that this whole farce started with this order:
Nice work Jo. Yours is the best short summary of this issue I’ve read.
As for the pugilistic aspects of this debate, Bush apologists are beyond convincing, having ensconced themselves the Impregnable Redoubt of Conviction.
Razor, for example, has above contradicted himself in consecutive posts. He is clearly not oblivious of that fact.
But when it comes to an article of faith that Bush is right and that Bush will prevail, mere evidence and argument count for nought.
Robert Bollard thinks that the reason climate change, the David Hicks issue and the Iraq war are “gaining traction� is “because the electorate is feeling economic pain� and this, he writes, has lead to “generalised discontent�.
Since Robert describes himself as a Marxist on leftwrites I presume he is attempting to use historical materialist methodology here.
I say this is a nice example of vulgar, or crude, if you prefer, economic determinism, in that it ignores that the relationship between base and superstructure is dialectical, in that it comprises two related poles that may at times come into contradiction. Further, Robert’s misguided application of Marxist methodology has lead him to not see the wood for the trees (always strategically bad) or acknowledge that even a cursory glance at history (try the 60s for starters) proves his reductionist thesis to be untrue.
If the dominant ideology of society, as Marxists have it, is the ideology of the ruling class, the reason the three issues referred to are “gaining traction� has less to do with the economic pain suffered by the masses, than the fact that cracks and divisions have appeared in the ruling class over these issues, and among their ideological and superstructural servants: scientists like Stern, Pentagon lawyers, state attorney-generals, capitalist politicians, etc.
In the case of Hicks and the Iraq War, one could also add the hoary and contradictory ideology of nationalism. Nationalism is quite possibly a major, certainly welcome and progressive factor in the growing unease in sections of the ruling class about continuing to passively kowtow to American political and economic dominance, given the US government’s dangerous disregard for elementary human rights (Hicks) and the rights of nations to self-determination (iraq): both bourgeois democratic rights history shows nations, oppressed nationalities, and individuals will always fight for, often to the death, if necessary.
Mark the fact that;
Is a red herring. Though I’m sure you did not intend it as such and would support the call for his release back to Australia provided he gives his parole.
David Hicks is a POW and comes under the GC because;
are POW’s
And Razor;
are POW’s
Those in this category, who do not respect the laws and customs of war (such as by killing captured soldiers and so forth) simply become war criminals and liable to be dealt with accordingly.
Now I do not claim in depth study here but as I understand the situation;
Professional soldier David Hicks was living as a result of his Taliban income (we ought to ‘follow the money or the supplies’ because we know he has to eat). He was returning to his ‘post’ because a state of war was upon his army and he was captured by the Northern Alliance and sold to the US forces. Inhabitants are people that are present when you turn up to overthrow the regime and he was present and preparing to form up and take up arms. Absent any crime (and that could have been dealt with long ago if there was evidence that could stand a trial) he ought to be free.
It really is hugely damaging to the war effort to have any number of people confused by this issue and organizing for Hicks, when they ought to be organizing to defeat the bombers of universities and market places in Afghanistan and Iraq. (Note to Karen those are the people that are damaging the interests of the Iraq masses!)
It is inexcusable that the debate is sidetracked into an area where such basic rights and duties have to be explained and once more fought for. But that is the nature of united fronts. We unite with right wingers like Blair, Howard, Bush and Maliki to defeat fascists like Saddam, Al Zarqawi and Sadr.
It is only the fact that Hicks is Australian (also an abandoned Brit so no marks for Blair here) that sees him in this horrible state. If he were a natural born Iraqi or a local ‘brown skin’ Muslim he would have been free long ago. This is a case of racism.
His treatment is not only wrong in principle (and that is sufficient reason to set him free on his parole - just like any good German or Japanese soldier there is no endless WOT he was captured in the war against the Al Qaeda protecting the Taliban government of Afghanistan) but it also clearly harms the total world wide war effort. This is completely inexcusable bungling that allows the likes of Rudd, Garrett and Brown to make propaganda gains.
The ALP support the war in Afghanistan, so does Mark I think, but their leadership are as daft as any peace activist who chanted ‘no blood for oil’ when it comes to a strategic policy to deal with the region that gave us 9/11.
Take Garrett who is a supporter of the ‘War on Terror’ (a stupid and misleading name that conceals the reality of the need for a revolutionary war for bourgeois democracy). Garrett now supports the US Bases in Australia (though he was weak as piss the other day and had to be sent out the next day to clarify his weak kneed position). He has stated that he supports the US bases because the WOT is primarily a war of intelligence gathering. He is a dolt. The current war is about changing the governments of the region from autocracies to bourgeois democracies.
Intelligence gathering is only a minor part of any war. We know what the enemy want and where and how they work. We know where they are coming from. The job is to stop them. That could never be achieved by endlessly killing the mosquitoes. The region is a swamp and must be drained.
Africa and most of the old USSR a-stans can’t be left behind either.
The old US policies of promoting stability and suppressing the struggles of the people against their autocrats is finished. It’s over.
Progressives ought to be discussing the next strategic step forward instead our ruling elites are so breathtakingly incompetent that we are still dragging them past their bungling Abu Ghraib scandals, CIA Extraordinary Rendition nonsense, Guantanamo Bay and torture scandals. Progressive forces must eventually lead. First we have to expose the pseudo-left and liberals for being even more reactionary than garden variety right wingers like Blair and Howard.
Razor says;
The whole point is the damage these activities do to the war effort. The war will be won by mobilizing the masses not relying on the delusion of Rambo.
Karen:
We live in the era when ‘nations want liberation, countries want independence and the people want revolution’ and the US had since WW2 basically been the biggest obstacle to achieving these. But the new US policies are reversing this. The liberation of Iraq (don’t you remember the three elections in 2005 that confirmed that the Iraqi people were liberated) is clear.
Progressives are at war with Baathists, Jihadists and the most reactionary Shia theocrats and nationalists in the Shia death squads. The pseudo-lefts are more right wing than even GWB. Rudd and the ALP are further right than Howard. Get used to the new world.
Great Article Rob…
Well, you ‘waste time’ doing things like establishing tribunals because you have respect for the conventions to which you are a signatory.
Razor, you simply don’t get it. If we, (the good guys), feel that our legal system, freedom, way of life, etc are worth defending, then to compromise on those very same principles in order to overcome the baddies is to surrender our values in the process?
Saddam Hussein offered many of his sectarian enemies a ‘fair trial.’ He read or delegated that the charges be read in a hastily convened tribunal with no due process, declared them guilty and shot them in the back of the head/hung them, blew them up, etc. Does that mean that we should apprehend Saddam, declare charges in a hastily convened show trial with questionable due process, find him guilty and shoot him in the back of the head, or hang him or something? (Oh sh*t, we’ve already done that.)
We must afford a fair process to the worst of the worst if we value fairness and justice, and our judicial architecture. If we don’t value these things, then we have much in common with some of the people upon whom we have declared war.
Finally, there’s a point here about properly constituted warfare that is perhaps worth making. To put the value laden WOT polemicism aside, let’s look at a hypothetical case:
If a wealthy, well appointed military force declares war on a country whose government has been thrown out in a coup, and replaced by a poorly armed militia, then what is the obligation of either force under the Geneva convention? Should the poorly armed force choose to defend itself, it will contravene the GC on properly constituted warfare. If the invading force operates on Razor’s modus operandi, “they don’t come close to qualifying under GC, so why bother establishing tribunals,” and detains, tries and executes ‘unlawful enemy combatants,’ then doesn’t this set a messy precedent.
It creates an apparatus for genocide and flaunting of the GC. It gives places like Iran, Syria, Sudan, North Korea a very handy precedent. Razor will no doubt respond… ‘It would be completely unreasonable for any of these nations to take such actions. It’s only right when it’s being done in the name of Freedom by the leader of the Free world!’
Free no more.
I was just pointing it out, patrickm, since it came up in the discussion. Certainly I’d like to see Hicks back in Australia.
Insight (SBS TV) tonight was fascinating. It had the full cast: Moe Davis, Michael Mori, Terry Hicks, Phil Ruddock, George Williams and a very savvy audience. Jenny Brockie was in in full flight and wielding her bullshit exploder with alacrity.
The program was full of priceless moments, such as an exchange whereby one of the arguments Ruddock advanced for having Hicks go before the military tribunal rather than be brought home without “testing the evidence” was that it afforded him the opportunity to “clear his name”, followed by unanimous derisive laughter. Phil also seemed to be taken aback that the Pee Em said he could bring Hicks back any time he asked.
This particular episode is worthy of a thread on its own. All the arguments we have bandied about here were ventilated by Williams (Anthony Mason Professor and Director of the Gilbert Tobin Centre of Public Law at the Faculty of Law, University of New South Wales), an expert in international laws and conventions and others.
Moe Davis, for the first time for the US side, seemed quite partial to (a) a plea bargain, (b) allowing for time served if Hicks is convicted and sentenced.
I think there’s been a sea change, folks.
I note in other news, that leading Republican candidate for president Senator John McCain said that Donald Rumsfeld (who?) aka Rumsfled, was the worst defence secretary in America’s history.
Shit, where does that leave Bill O’Reilly? link?