ABC story here. The government thinks the plea-bargain is just fine and dandy, though Alexander Downer is indulging in hand-wringing over the delays in the trial process.
There are a million observations that could be made about this debacle. But one that strikes me is that for all the aberrations of this process, the end result of the trial is all too common in the US criminal justice system, at least as I understand it. A guilty plea, in the face of draconian penalties from a guilty verdict on the original charges, with the promise of a radical sentence reduction. And thus we will never get a satisfactory legal test of Hicks’ actual guilt or innocence.
One other question - what should Labor do if Hicks is in an Australian prison when a Rudd government (cross fingers) comes to power later this year, or early 2008?
UPDATE: in comments, Atticus links to a long but informative law review article that argues that the plea-bargains struck in military tribunals are unconstitutional because of their unfairness. Interesting, though I wonder about the implication that the normal operation of the plea-bargaining system in the USA is actually fair…
If Hicks is brough back to Australia, a signatory to the Geneva Convention and The International Court in The Hague, then wouldn’t Julian Burnside and Co. get medieval on the High Court’s arse to have him released from the moment he lands on home soil. Any deal that Howard(to save electoral bacon) has done with Bush would be rendered irrevant in International and Australian Law, wouldn’t it Robert?
Five years chained to the floor of a cell and tortured, who wouldn’t cop a plea to get out of hell on earth? By definition, it’s impossible to get a fair trial in a kangaroo court. Even the new Pentagon chief, Myers, told Bush he should shut it down.
It is hard to take this plea bargain seriously.
The argument against the use of plea bargaining in “enemy combatant” cases was ably set out by Carl Takei in his article, “in the Boston College Law Review (available via SSRN). Here is his conclusion:
Although I am not in a position to evaluate his argument about the legality of these plea agreements, Takei’s case against the efficacy and justice of the plea bargaining system in such outrageous circumstances is difficult to fault. I urge you all to read the whole article.
I would think so…and the spectacle of such a court case would be, um, rather distracting for a government in an election mode.
For more reasoned legal opinions, maybe one of the other LPers will weigh in.
It’s disappointing but how else would defence counsel advise? Put yourself in Major Mori’s shoes.
The Military Commission is a ‘our way or the highway’ process, and if David Hicks didn’t plead guilty, he would have faced a hostile prosecution and his sentence would have been lengthy. And he can’t count on political relief coming from a change of government in Australia, or the US.
- Guilty verdict is literally ensured.
- Bizarre rules of evidence laid out in the manual (a good article at Eureka Street on the manual for military commissions, subscriber only, which outlines that time served is not ordinarily part of the sentencing provisions)
- inadequate defence compared to a well resourced prosecution
- inhuman conditions in Guantanamo Bay, and after five years, who can blame him.
But still it’s a shame he has pleaded guilty. Once he pleads guilty, then he surrenders the moral high ground, and submits to the process, despite the fact that the retrospective charge, commission process and process of interrogation are patently illegal and immoral.
Still, who can blame him.
All this law-talking is missing the real story here - Hicks has put on weight! What a mystery! I’ve been racking my brain about this one. Does anyone know if snouts and entrails tend to be lean or more to the fatty end of the meaty spectrum?
A question.
Hicks’s case is settled through the plea bargain and he returns to Australia.
The US Supreme Court subsequently decides that the military commissions are once again unconstitutional.
Is Hicks still a convicted terrorist?
The regime for international transfer of prisoners is, perhaps not surprisingly, governed by the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997 (Cth).
No transfer can be made while the conviction or sentence is subject to appeal in the US: s 15(1)(a). As Hicks is striking a plea deal, it is unlikely he would appeal, so this won’t prevent his return.
The sentence must also have a fixed term (including the parole period): s 15(1)(c). This won’t be a problem.
A transfer can only be made if the acts constituting the offence in the US would have constituted an offence in Australia: s 15(1)(b). There may be some argument about this, but s 15(3) allows the Attorney-General to “determine that the requirements of subsection (1)(b) … need not be satisfied in a particular prisoner’s case”. It is almost inconceivable that the A-G would determine otherwise in Hicks’s case.
The A-G may decide whether the prisoner will serve their sentence as close as possible to the way it would be served in the transfer country, or (with the transfer country’s approval) the A-G may “convert” the sentence to one of a different length and method: s 42. The sentence the prisoner serves here must not be “harsher” than the original sentence: s 43.
As far as Enemy Combatant’s question goes, the answer lies in s 45:
So it is unlikely that any High Court challenge would be successful.
There is, however, the possibility that Hicks could be pardoned or have his sentence commuted under s 49(1):
That, I would think, is Hicks’s best shot, but it’s still not a great one. It is unlikely that the Government would concede that the Military Commission process was flawed by pardoning Hicks or commuting his sentence.
It is far more likely that he will be released on parole and made subject to a control order. Whether this happens before or after the election will depend on the Government’s assessment of the relative political cost of either locking Hicks up (which will certainly lead to protests) or releasing him (which will increase his access to the media).
Yes - but other detainees are appealing the unconstitutionality of the military commission and they well could be successful in having the commissions scrapped.
Grubby asks what happens if the Military Commission process is subsequently struck down as unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court. Assuming that Hicks’s conviction was nullified or quashed as a result, that is covered by s 49(2)(b), which relevantly provides:
I’m sure the Australian Governtment would love that.
It’s not Mori’s job to conduct Hicks’ defence in the way that maximises the political embarrassment toi the Howard government, however viscerally satisfying that may be to many people. It’s Mori’s job to do the best he can by his client. And he probably has done just that.
Rudd won’t do anything to go back on the deal. If he did, the next Australian to be caught up like Hicks would be locked up and forgotten about not for five years but for the rest of their life.
Given that his legal team were trying to delay the case as late as last week, any cries of delayed justice ring very hollow, as even the ABC itself notes:
BTW, I bet no-one here would question the genuineness of a guilty plea by Scooter Libby. No, it would be full-steam ahead, next stop Jonesville Virginia. Well, from Hick’s own lips is good enough for me. On the bright side for St. David, it looks like he’ll have lots of conjugal visitors.
The Hicks’ guilty plea was the top story on the radio news here in Austria this morning.
I was unaware that “Scooter” had been imprisoned without charge, subject to torture, and had to face a “court” designed to find him guilty of whatever could be dreamed up by Bushco.
Please enlighten me, Craig Mc.
Robert Merkel, Atticus and All:
Quite apart from giving great encouragement and assistance to terrorist organizations through this persistence with kangaroo courts, especially in the face of so much professional military advice …… there is one good thing likely to come out of this unholy mess:
People on both sides of the Pacific will now be driven to re-examine their laws on treason.
If American military personnel swear their oath to uphold the Constitution of The United States …… then how stand those American military personnel who have chosen to give their allegiance instead to a Monarch - whether that monarch be called “president”. “king”, “fuehrer”, ‘ayatollah” or whatever? Are they guilty of treason - even though they may have committed such a crime with the noblest of intentions?
How stand those Australian politicians who have deliberately and persistently chosen to serve a foreign ruler to the detriment of Australian people, Australian laws and Australian defence? Are they then guilty of treason and should we condemn them as traitors? We are entitled to ask.
Long after David Hicks himself has been forgotten the Pandora’s Box opened by this case - and its consequences - will be known and remembered by everyone.
Come on, Craig, let’s be serious.
The biggest delay was due to the fact that the Supreme Court found the Military Commission process was illegal, and forced the US Government to start again. That can’t be blamed on Hicks or his team. It is plainly the fault of the US Government.
After that decision, there was further delay as a new Commission system was designed. Then we waited for the charges to be announced. Then we waited for the charges to be approved. All of this delay was due to the US Government.
Remember, during this time Hicks was facing several charges, including attempted murder. The prosecutors were forced to drop all but one of the charges. As soon as they did so, Hicks pleaded guilty.
How on earth can you blame Hicks for the delay?
And on the validity of the plea bargain, why don’t you read the article I quoted and linked? It shows why it is totally illegitimate to compare the normal, run-of-the-mill plea bargaining process (which is not always fair) with the “enemy combatant” plea bargaining process (which is almost always unfair). What does Scooter Libby have to do with any of this?
By agreeing to incarcerate Hicks under the International Transfer of Prisoners Act 1997, the Howard Government would be conceding the legitimacy of the exercise in executive action embodied in the Military Tribunal Process.
I notice that about half this Act is comprised of provisions that apply only to US Military Tribunals:
Thus, uniquely, executive action by a US President is accorded a status equal to real judicial processes in other jurisdictions. Were, for example, the French President to establish such a tribunal, its sentences would not be recognised under this Australian legislation. Perhaps even a Star Chamber established under the aegis of Queen Elizabeth of Great Britain would not be recognised.
What public interest is served by singling out the executive authority of one Head of State among hundreds for juridical recognition by the commonwealth of Australia?
Might not this act breach other treaty obligations and therefore be unconstitutional?
“And thus we will never get a satisfactory legal test of Hicks’ actual guilt or innocence.”
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah! That really is priceless. Why do lefties continue to back lost causes. The guy was as guilty as hell right from the start and blind freddy could have seen that. Now that he openly admits it, they still can’t see it. There are unknown truths, known truths, yada,yada and then there are lefties. Bwahahahahahahahahahahah!
He pleaded guilty.
Thus the American version is now the authentic version of what he got up to.
It came from the lips of the man himself.
It isn’t Hallowe’en is it?
So why are the usual RWDB hobgoblins so frisky this evening?
Let’s put it in short words even they understand.
The question isn’t guilt or innocence. The issue is the process of proving guilt.
Y’see, Obby and SATP could be crocodile clipped to a Tucker telephone and asked many questions.
In the end, they’d plead guilty to anything to make the pain stop. They may even plead guilty to stuff for which they are guilty.
But it’s hardly a reliable process, is it?
Real courts of law minimise the opportunity for torture or coercion to be used.
That’s why Hicks should have been found guilty in a proper court of law.
The guy is a three time loser. Fought with the KLA in Kosovo, boasted to his father that he had shot hundreds of rounds at Indian troops from Kashmir, caught with hundreds of rounds and a few hand grenades in Afghanistan.
If the Americans lacked integrity, they would have shot him upon capture.
Pleading guilty has one huge benefit for the guilty one.
The evidence never makes it into public.
“He pleaded guilty.”
If it comes to that, so did Zinoviev at his show trial in 1936. He was also charged with terrorism offences.
“Pleading guilty has one huge benefit for the guilty one.
The evidence never makes it into public.”
That’s true, but this thread is about David Hicks, not Scooter Libby.
Please! Not a typo. Frequently used. What is so difficult with plurals and apostrophes?
Or am I just a pedant?
As for SATP
SATP, torture will make anyone say anything the torturer wants the tortured to say.
Please!
Katz, the provisions in 4A were added in 2004. At the same time, the definitions were changed so that Guantanamo Bay was treated as a part of the US for the purposes of the legislation. You might be interested to see that both Labor and the Greens raised concerns similar to yours, but did not oppose the Bill because it would facilitate the return of David Hicks to Australia.
As to your question about whether “this act [might] breach other treaty obligations and therefore be unconstitutional?” A law breaching a treaty obligation does not make it unconstitutional; if that was the case, much of WorkChoices would have been chucked out by the High Court.
some rather heavy grade denial going on tonight.
Hicks-pleaded-guilty-deal-with-it
Spiros:
Thought nobody would ever get around to mentioning Mr Josef Stalin’s entertaining show trials. [All RWDBs, just face reality: Mr Bush and his accomplices have now turned Commie].
Basically, people have dealt with it, and realised that the guilty plea doesn’t change anything. You still believe what you already belived, and people that questioned the legality of the process still question it.
If Dolly and Howard think they’ve defused a ticking electoral time bomb, they’ve made another of those mistakes that have become so common over the past few weeks.
Well, plainly there was a charge, because Hicks just plead guilty to it. Now I’ll take the various boys who cried torture more seriously when I see some physical evidence of such. Perhaps the Afghani Candidate was brain-washed into confessing by being given the apparent super-size me diet.
You claim that the system is rigged for guilty verdicts, well that claim would fall apart on the first dismissal, wouldn’t it? I’m patient.
So much hyperbole, such an unworthy beneficiary.
A Crown Solicitor under riding instructions from a Labor Attorney General might argue this point less insistently before Their Honours.
I wonder which part of the rule of law the above wretched commentators do not understand.
And why do they persist with the delusion that this is about David Hicks when a moment’s reflection should provide the realisation that this goes far beyond one unfortunate individual?
Fact is, Larvatus Prodeo gang, the MSM still beats you hands down on crucial matters.
Evidence: Alan Ramsay, SMH columnist, December 2005 and your written record on this:
Craig Mc
With the Amerikans freely acknowledging the use of “waterboarding”, sleep deprivation, continuous solitary confinement, what other evidence of torture is required ?
Oh, I forgot, Bushco. have changed the definitions of torture - to exclude the above treatments - surely a move reminiscent of the great Stalin.
Then, in a further demonstration of of their devotion to “Justice, and the Amerikan way”, said cabal also found that the only charge they could sustain had to be applied retrospectively to Hicks, and even that seems pretty suspect, given that Hicks was supposedly spying on an embassy which had been closed for around 12 years.
Rather reeks of desperation to me.
If the tribunals were not set up to find the captives guilty, why use such a (flawed) mechanism at all ? Any alleged crimes committed could be tried according to the established principles of transparency, freedom from torture, right to adequate defence, a fair trial, etc., as included in the justice systems of all civilised nations. That the Bushistas chose this method clearly illustrates their ongoing contempt for such principles, and clearly places them among the enemies of freedom.
In the interests of life maintenance, I would suggest that you do not attempt to hold your breath while awaiting a dismissal - after all kangaroo courts are not known for acquittals.
Bridie, if you have a point, I fail to grasp what it is. Perhaps you should have contacted the MSM instead.
We need to be clear that Hicks only pleaded guilty to belonging to a terrorist organiation (Al Qaeda) but not gulty to committing any terrorist act as charged. This was according to his US defense counsel (not Maj. Mori) as interviewed on the 7.30 Report.
I don’t get it either. What’s our “written record on this” which is being compared to Ramsay’s column?
Everyone:
Given all the circumstances, any admission of “guilt” is meaningless. Whether David Hicks was guilty as sin or as innocent as a newborn baby irrelevant too.
What is important, meaningful and relevant is that the Americans had so much contempt for Australia that they did not hand David Hicks over to Australian authorities immediately he was captured and that they continued to detain him and mistreat him. This continues to be a deliberate insult to Australian sovereignty and an insult to Australian service personnel risking their lives in the fight against the terrorists; it shows complete distrust and scorn for Australians.
Those fools who are gullible enough to believe that a “guilty” plea under duress will mean that David Hicks will ever get back to Australia had better start thinking of what excuses they’ll make if - or when - David Hicks is executed.
Hicks to be executed?
Optimistic of you Graham Bell.
Alas we’ll probably have to settle for his return to Australia.
GB - If the Americans wanted Hicks dead, they hed the perfect opportunity at the time of capture. They are, on the whole, too decent to take that approach.
Consider the upcoming moral dilemma for the left: Australia will have to make pretty solemn agreements to detain Hicks for the term he is sentenced for before the Americans release him for detention in Australia. What’s the bet that when he arrives, his cheer squad will agitate for him to be released prematurely?
Will you be supporting them? Would you have released the Rainbow Warrior murderers if you were France?
Yes, we need to be clear. I didn’t see the 7:30 report, but Hicks wasn’t charged with committing any terrorist act in the first place. He was charged with providing material support for a terrorist organisation, such “support” including, amongst other things, spying on the US Embassy building in Kabul, which had been abandoned by the US in 1989 after the Soviet invasion.
Lets put into perspecting ANYTHING which comes from Hicks’s lawyers.
Pablo, after hearing for some time (via Hicks’s legal team - including Major Mori)that David was losing weight, going pale without sunlight, etc etc, I now read reports from today that he fronted court with a complexion matching that of Major Mori and considerably overweight.
Oh, I forgot, Bushco. have changed the definitions of torture
Difficult to forget something you never knew, Pterosaur. Care to provide any evidence in support of this assertion?
Arrgh! Abandoned by the US in 1989 after the mujahideen takeover.
Graham Bell - we all live in hope.
If you polled the population of a jail the vast majority would tell you tht they are innocent, too.
His legal tam and supporters have been shown to be liars - he was getting fat at Gitmo - not losing weight. He also has a tan showing the lie of not seeing sunlight for extended periods.
You Hicks supporters are a treat - there is clear public evidence of his particpation in terrorist activities, even before the prosecution produced what they have discovered. And now he has pleaded guilty. You guys are unbelievable.
These sorts of comments are pointless, Bridie. The fact that we weren’t writing about him doesn’t mean that our concern for the issue isn’t sincere now. Blogs aren’t newspapers - they don’t pretend to be journals of record covering every issue and because they tend to be reactive to the news agenda, they tend also to pick up on what’s currently in the public eye and in the public mood. But the whole MSM v. blogs thing is silly. We aren’t trying to claim we’re “better”.
I realise that for you wingnuts what daddy Howard and uncle Bush says has to be true, otherwise you’d look like a bunch of gullible idiots.
But the evidence is almost overwhelming that Howard and Bush are profound liars. So your opinions carry about as much weight as those of people who say they can communicate telepathically with aliens.
I know that this may be difficult for you Razor, but if you try really hard you may be able to work out the difference the ‘vast majority’ of the jail population and David Hicks.
SJ I have no idea what you mean by that. What have Howards and Bush go to do with this case? Have you not heard Terry Hicks reading his son’s letter boasting of shooting hundreds of rounds at Indian Troops? Or referring to the worldwide Jewish conspiracy?
The guy is a bad egg - and now he’s pleaded guilty
Thanks for answering my question Kim.
I’m really amazed at the lunacy of some comments here that see the Bush commissions as having legitimacy - one person even advocates updating treason laws! (In Britain you have to go back to the 14th century to find them). It really shows how effectively people have been hoodwinked by talk of Hicks being a ‘terrorist threat’. Wasn’t he simply volunteering to fight for a government, albeit a repressive one which i have no sympathy for?
And the idea that the defence was assisted by ‘evidence’ not being presented. What a joke. Wasn’t the lack of evidence the whole reason for these Commissions? As i see it, the new Commission regime even more blatantly contravenes the Geneva Conventions than the old one, and so will eventually be struck down, and Hicks’ conviction will be quashed. Of course you can’t have justice after five years of torture and under a show trial regime dreamt up by Pentagon busy-bodies.
Free David Hicks!
Free Khalid Sheikh Mohammed!
No probs, Bridie.
If I wrote blog posts about everything that got up my goat, I’d never have time for anything else and I’d probably end up spending far too much of my day steamed up!
Wasn’t he simply volunteering to fight for a government, albeit a repressive one which i have no sympathy for?
You haven’t been paying attention Will. Hicks went to three different countries to shoot at people. Could be that he just likes killing.
It amazes me the confidence of some peoples attitudes to Hicks and what he may or may not have done.Recently I have been visiting You Tube and I have found videos political on matters Habeas Corpus.There seems little left in the American Constitution that would bring a comfort to Australians as a right at Law.Any depiction of Hicks an Australian citizen frightens me.Even Mori has been tested and to resist had to counter with his own test.I accept Hicks unhappiness with losing lawyers,because after five years and a obvious mental condition,as expressed by rapid weight gain,the Hell hole justice as place and routine is getting to him.31 years of age and 26 when this nightmare started doesnt in my mind mean he is a conscious recruit to what he has pleaded guilty to,and any name calling in his other war experiences are pretty blind,when compared with the age of the strange case of a gun killing some one off duty in Iraq,and the endless discovery of bastardisation in the Australian ranks.
There was a time for the strong, resourceful and never-wrong COW countries to deal with the prisoners in Guantanamo scooped up early in the WOT, but that time was years ago. Like most advantages briefly in the hands of the GOP, the value of effectively and transparently dealing with prisoners has been frittered away.
In Australia at least, the tactic of cow-towing to the every whim of the US administration is going to back-fire rather nastily for the coalition. Guilty in a plea bargain might convince the 3 members of the 101st Keyboarders above, but it’s a decreasingly small club.
If it looks like a tribunal of convenience, and sounds like a tribunal of convenience…
Q; Is the Howard administration the only one to leave a national at the legal hands of another?
In all this lawyerly talk, what about Hicks? Stuff the legalisms, I’m sure he’s tired of sleeping with the light on 24 hours a day. He just wants the nightmare to be over. I don’t think he cares to be a pin up boy of the latte sippers, or the Young Labor Lawyers while he stays rotting chained to the floor for the next 2 years, waiting for the niceties of what the fine print really means are worked out.
The military commission is a joke and this is even obvious to our milko and the ladies at the dry cleaners (they vote too). It can’t even function on its own terms - witness the attempted intimidation of his lawyer Mike Mori and the last-minute dismissal of the civillian mouthpieces. Moe, Larry and Shemp must have been truly desperate, because it looked bad.
After that Hicks twigged that he’s not even going to get first base with regard to even a skerrick of justice, so he pulled the pin. The late night set-up plea bargain was a lay down mazaire and a done deal favour to the Rodent and his mates arranged while the Halliburton Veep dropped by at Kirribilli.
Let’s face it, politically, the Rat can’t bring Hicks home without a guilty tag because he has to satisfy the lynch mob elements among his supporters, and it would look bad that he had insisted all this time for an innocent man to be tortured and kept in solitary confinement by our great and powerful friend. But the oprobrium around the Rodent and the Rodent Party will hang around them like a fart in a lift, rest assured Rat Party urgers.
In the end, Hicks will be back home to sleep in his own bed, go fishing, have a punt on Victoria Park mid-weekers and find a bit of love. Let’s hope he will find time and energy to tell his side of the story - so far we’ve heard it mainly by way of Alexander Downer’s pouty lips (and we don’t know where they’ve been). If Hicksie spoils the Lying Rodent’s return run to the Lodge by talking to the Women’s Weekly, Cleo, Ray Martin, Neil Mitchell, Good Morning Australia, Rove mcMannus, Eddie Maguire, whatevva, it’s the least he can do. I hope he talks and talks, even under wet cement. Go Dave, dig the Lying Rodent’s grave like he dug yours.
Hey Bridie — here’s a post from way back in November 2005. So LP was talking about Hicks before that Alan Ramsey column. Fancy that.
There were other posts throughout 2006 as well. Sure, we didn’t post about it daily, but that’s at least partly because there was nothing new to say on a daily basis.
What’s yer problem, anyway?
I like Sir Casingbroke’s analysis, but i think you’re being optimistic if you think that Hicks will be able to ‘lay it’ on Howard. They’ve staked so much on Hicks, and got it so spetacularly wrong. Surely he’ll be thrown in an Australian dungeon before the media can get so much as an artist’s impression. After all, this remains a political rather than legal process. The executive are after damage limitation.
When Hicks is transported to Australia it will be most interesting what Labor do and say (not much i suspect). They have loudly, and rightly proclaimed that the Commissions are a sham, so they will surely not be able to let someone convicted under them serve his sentence in Australia. But they do approve of the ‘control order’.. hey, perhaps re-trial after 5 years of internment and tortre, so perhaps that’s the future if/when Rudd wins.
Razor:
Whoa! Hold your horses!
I am a supporter of Australian sovereignty and democracy and the Rule-of-Law and of all our traditional rights, duties, protections and obligations ….. but that does not necessarily make me a “Hicks supporter” because you might imagine that I think David Hicks is such a nice chap.
It is that tyrrany is as bad as terrorism; that injustice is still evil no matter who commits it.
Make no mistake, I have a strong opinion of the conduct of David Hicks but I have even stronger opinions about the abuse of power, about our politicians crawling to foreign rulers ….. and about us all being put in great peril by political stupidity and military brutality.
At the time of his capture, he was of mild passing interest only to his Taliban pals and, in the hands of competent non-U.S. interrogators, a potentially valuable source of intelligence. Now, thanks to that bunch of Yank S&M perverts and Hollywood-trained interrygaters, he is useless to us as a source of useful intelligence but he has been made into a valuable propaganda weapon for al-Qaeda and their ilk. Wonder if Howard, Downer and Ruddock will get thank-you cards from Osama bin-Whatsisname for all their unintended but priceless help.
Madness!
of course, it is the principle not the fact that is important. The fact that he was guilty is irrelevant, lets talk about human rights!
On PM this evening Leigh Sales (?) gave a neat summary of what Hicks had been up to. My own feeling is that he hadn’t grown up and was having identity problems. Nevertheless that’s not an excuse.
But as SJ notes above he only pleaded guilty to “providing material support for a terrorist organisation”, which doesn’t make him a convicted terrorist. I understand there was a second more serious charge of providing material support to a specific terrorist act, which he didn’t plead guilty to and which may have been harder to prove.
Someone, SATP I think, mentioned his sun tan and putting on weight. Since when is the latter an indication of health? according to Terry Hicks he was scared to go into the exercise yard because the other inmates saw him as a CIA spy.
His sun tan could have had to do with his cell being open to the sunlight. It seems he grew his hair to provide shade for his face.
Also on PM Prof Don Rothwell commented on the legal issues. We’ll no doubt here more from Hicks’ lawyers after the sentence is handed down, but it seems clear that a bargain was struck and Hicks’ priority was to be anywhere rather than Guantanamo.
er, i think the other more serious charge was attempted murder, which is a crime in most places (even if that place happens to be American-controlled no-mans land on the tip of Cuba). ‘providing material support for a terrorist organisation’ is only a crime under the absurd laws that Bush rushed through before he lost control of Congress. ditto Howard in 2005. in fact, terrorism can never be a crime, because it is a political strategy. murder is a crime, attempted murder is a crime, conspiracy to murder is a crime etc. etc.
Interesting to see as many neocon trolls here as on the U.S. side of cyberspace. “Give ‘im a fair trial and hang ‘im in the morning.” Might as well be said by a pseudo-Texan.
No, the rule of law is really the issue. Bush & the Corruption Gang abdicated that a long time ago.
Guilt or innocence ought to be achieveable in an open court of law. For those who prefer the extra-legal approach, when it is your turn in the barrel, I will laugh.
Anyone willing to give Dubya a lapdance deserves nothing but scorn.
Nine major adminstration scandals and convictions thus far and more to come. This surely is the nadir of American history. Used to be a great place to visit but even I wouldn’t want to go back to live!
Brian, it was not suggested that massive weight gain by Hicks was a sign of “good health”, but that it contrasted with the post-visit reports from his lawyers that he was wasting away.
Likewise for the suntan, also a diametric reversal of his reported pallid complexion resulting from total denial of sunlight.
Lets see, what else has his legal team told us? … oh yeah… that Davo has been tortured.
will, I didn’t make it up. I heard it a number of times today on the ABC, including Mark Colvin on PM
I haven’t been following the issue blow by blow over the last 5 years, so attempted murder may have been in the mix at some stage.
Whatever, steve, I’m not in any position to arbitrate between the various stories. I’m sure it was no fun in Guatanamo. Did you see the film The Road to Guantanamo?
hi brian, it was only at the start of this month that the attempted murder charge was dropped.
steve would rather not see that film i expect. ‘well fed’? ’sun tan’? ha! what a distraction. what a gullible punter steve is.
“The Road to Guantanamo” is by no means an investigative, authoritative or even an authenticated film.
The filmaker took the uncorroborated word of 3 releasees from Camp X-Ray, and turned it into film.
Have not seen the film, so cannot comment on the artistic, cinematographic, etc merits of it.
However, as a representation of life inside Gitmo, it would be less accurate than “Neighbors” is of life inside Melbourne.
I do not think Hicks is a bad egg. But even if he was he is entitled to due process. I find it almost incomprehensible that an Adelaide son would leave the beautiful beaches and start toting a gun for burqa wearing - but there you have it - he was well and truly sucked in to God and for that we have religious conservatives of every hue to thank.
I think it is very unfair to select the part about the bullets to Kashmir from what Terry Hicks read of his son’s letters - I think it was clear that Hicks was a bit deluded and was having second thoughts just prior to him being captured by the Northern Alliance. BTW if Hicks had been Afghani or other non-Westerner it is likely he would have been held and questioned and told not to do it anymore and sent home.
I will look at the reports in more depth in the next few days but I think it is almost inevitable given the ‘process’ that has just occurred that this issue will be decided in the Australian High Court. How can this plea be seen as anything other than duress?
Let’s face it, that horrible US tyrannical system employed Major Mori to do the best he could for Hicks. He knew damn well he had a snowball’s chance in hell of fighting his client’s case on the facts so he did the only thing left for his client. Delay proceedings as much as he could and fight this thing politically, strumming every heart string he possibly could. Naturally the game was up the moment his client realised he was to get his day in court and face up to the cold hard facts. End of game play, but give Mori and the US system their due, Hicks was given his best shot at skinning out of it all by skinning the usual suspects like roos. The echo effect of that campaign here at LP is ample testament to that. So much for two minutes of fame of another useful idiot of the left. Next!
American in Oz:
Start chuckling. It is poetic justice that those who smashed Habeus Corpus for political AND COMMERCIAL? convenience are now at risk of being ruined by the very legal system they perverted and crippled.
I wonder what will become known in Jurisprudence in future as the “Howard Excuse” and the “Ruddock Denial”? Whether David Hicks lives, has an unfortunate accident or is executed ….. the writs will roll ….
PhilipTravers and SirHenryCasingbroke:
Excellent points.
Bridie, you may have missed my post here as well.
[link]
Obby sez
As distinct from useful idiots pushing Ratty’s barrel of ordure. Next!
For other purveyors of kangaroo courts and star chambers who seem to be flocking here, you might like to consider how and why we evolved away from that and then justify in non-ideological, non-fearmongering terms, why there is a need to return to it?
I do not think Hicks is a bad egg.
IY on what do you base your faith in Hicks? He boasts of his terror tourism to his father. Don’t you believe him?
I think it is very unfair to select the part about the bullets to Kashmir from what Terry Hicks read of his son’s letters
I didn’t select it. Terry Hicks chose to read it out in front of a camera. Also the part about the Jewish conspiracy. Do you think the Indians will apply to extradite Hicks to face charges pertaining to his Kashmir adventures?
I think it was clear that Hicks was a bit deluded
Er yes - at least. Lots of criminals can make that claim.
will be decided in the Australian High Court
As I suggested above - the Americans are not going to give Hicks up without guarantees from Australia that he will not be released prematurely. They will probably also want to know what the alternative government’s view is.
This will be one of those hard decisions that the Left avoids at all costs - either commit to keep Hicks locked up in order to secure his repatriation - or leave him to serve the remainder of his sentence overseas. What to do?
How can this plea be seen as anything other than duress?
Why is this plea any different to other pleas? Criminals make pleas after significant terms of imprisonment. Criminals often claim they are under duress. Criminals lie.
None of which should be taken to indicate that I support the delay in justice to David Hicks. I just find it astonishing that so many on this forum cannot separate the “justice delayed” issue from their need for Hicks to be innocent. Hick’s murderous intent is pretty obvious.
No, not really PeterTB.
[link]
(Professor Robert Goldman Washington College of Law)
War between lawful combatants necessarily includes “murderous intent” so your only argument can be that Hicks was an unlawful combatant and/or guarding a tank at Kandahar while serving with the Taliban was a war crime.
A domestic so called “anti-terrorist” law made in 2006 and applied retrospectively to 2001, to a foreign national in another foreign country, fighting for a de-facto but partly recognised government, does not cut the mustard in international law.
That common article 3 of the Geneva conventions is flouted as well in the sham trial process is what disgusts people everywhere. Innocence or guilt is not the point at all, it’s the process and compliance with international law that is at stake. If we OTOH want to throw all that away then we jump into the same gutter as the real terrorists, as distinct from one stupid young man caught in the wrong place at the wrong time, the subject of this discussion.
And for those who seek comfort and vindication in Hicks’ plea bargain, one of the indictments John Howard may be facing one day, (among so many others too numerous to mention) ie denying Hicks’ rights under Common Article 3 by acts of commission or omission, (as an accessory or otherwise), IS ITSELF a war crime.