According to Habib, Hicks was more susceptible to torture and to ill-treatment than the general run of Gitmo inmates.

Moreover, in an interview Terry Hicks mentioned that his son David was vilified and ostracised by other inmates as an informer. Hicks may indeed have been an informer, the Gitmo authorities may have spread that rumour for their own purposes, or Hicks may hve been the victim of racist attitudes among other inmates.

It could well be argued that Hicks was therefore the perfect first defendant for these Military commissions. Offer Hicks a deal in return for a coerced “confession” and he’ll jump at it.

This morning it was revealed that Hicks’s plea bargain was stitched up in the Pentagon over the heads of the prosecutors. This may or may not be a good cop/bad cop routine.

However, the bottom line is:

a. The military commission process has had its first case,
b. Other inmates now know that it is possible to get a soft result.
c. An importunate John howard has been mollified.
d. The RWDB choir will believe the veracity of Hicks’s “confessions”.
e. Most importantly, the Hicks process provides a convenient way of minimising the continuing scandal in US domestic politics of Gitmo and the Military Commission process.

Alistair Nicholson seems to think something stinks, in the land of malodorous Ratfinkdom, the deal stitched up could have a whiff of caveat emptor in its odiferousness.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/our-own-laws-condemn-hicks-trial/2007/04/01/1175366072889.html?page=2

There is a further observation that I would make and it again involves the strongest possible criticism of the Government and of the Attorney-General in particular. Mr Ruddock had been suggesting that the remedy for Hicks’ release lay in his own hands, and that remedy was to plea bargain. This was a cynical misuse of power unworthy of our first law officer. He well knew that unless the Government intervened, as it was morally obliged to do, and if Hicks contested the charges, it was highly likely that regardless of the outcome, it would be years more in Guantanamo Bay before any challenge to the legality of the second commission could be determined.

It follows that with the connivance of the Australian Government, Hicks was placed in an impossible position to which there was only one possible solution, which he took. As a lawyer, I would have advised him to do so regardless of any question of guilt. It follows that his plea of guilty means nothing, nor do any carefully scripted admissions he might have made.

One might ask why was this deal done? There can be little doubt that at a very late stage and faced with increasingly hostile public opinion, the Australian Government pressured the US Government to bring this trial on as quickly as possible. Neither government wanted him returning to Australia making allegations about torture and ill treatment, or the process to which he had been subjected. The answer was to devise a sentence that would ensure his silence, at least until after the Australian election and preferably for many years after.

One thing is for sure, deals made under duress are not worth the paper they’re written on: this Stalinesque show trial in its aftermath has a long and and slow burning fuse.

anyway, as this amusing YouTube comp shows, Alexander Downer has also pleaded guilty, repeatedly.

Bob Brown is speaking at a Free David Hicks rally in Melbourne on April 21.

Bob Brown’s Senate candidates will benefit from Bob speaking truth to power on the Hicks stitch up. Might even get his party balance of power at this year’s federal election. At least this time Bob wasn’t flying-wedged by Howard’s heavies as he was when he tried to present Bush-The-Imbecile with a written petition on the floor of parliament.

In the meantime Sir Rodney Rudd is busy breaking his “spear” into even smaller pieces lest voters think he should show a bit of ticker in regard to Hicks’ show trial and its aftermath. Yesterday’s Alan Ramsay piece in the SMH showed how hard Rudd is prepared to fight to save his hagiography. It is a great disappoinment that Rudd doesn’t display a bit of the same mongrel over David Hick’s treatment.

PS Good on you, site techies, for getting LP rolling again. There’s no Oz based blogsite to match it.

Come to think of it, what happens if he does talk to the media, from his South Australian jail cell? What is the Government going to do, ship him back to Guantanamo?

Indeed, if might be in Howard’s interests if Hicks did talk to the media. He is something of a loose cannon, after all. If he says he was tortured, Howard will respond, “he would say that”, and most of the general public will agree. If Hicks something like, “long live Osama”, and he might, Howard will respond, “see, we were right about him all along”.

Just imagine what Ratty doesn’t want you to know. It’s probably worse than you are capable of imagining.

Think about that when you line up at your children’s school to vote.

Now if he’d been addressing Hicks’ and his al Qaeda mates’ actions, he may have had a point!