[Below is an Australia in the Indian Ocean article originally published on 14 January 2007 concerning David Hicks - imprisoned illegally for 5 years in Guantanamo gaol by the US - contrary to international law. Due mainly to Australian public pressure (including this blog and by many on OLO) on the Australian and US governments Hicks received improved treatment. Hicks was eventually charged and tried in Guantanamo and rightly returned to Australia. After some time in home detention in Australia he was released.]
On 14 January 2007:
"Davids Hicks being moved between cell blocks at Guantanamo Bay. The United States has held an Australian citizen, David Hicks, without trial and currently without charge for more than five years, at Guantanamo Bay. Hicks was captured in December 2001 after having allegedly served with the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.
Major US allegations include Hicks:
- associated with leaders of al-Qaeda after 9/11
- was issued with weapons to fight American troops in Afghanistan, and
- was ordered to translate terrorist material into English for Osama bin Laden.
.
.On January 14, 2006 Major Michael Mori, the US Marine Corps lawyer assigned to defend David Hicks wrote:
-
"WHEN I was assigned to represent David Hicks, I knew the US Administration and those within the military commissions system, such as Colonel Morris Davis, chief prosecutor for the US Office of Military Commissions, would resist providing an Australian the same rights and protections as an American. I never imagined Australian ministers would actively support the United States' hypocritical treatment of an Australian.
In The Sunday Age last week, the [Australian]Attorney-General tried to defend the indefensible treatment of David Hicks. It was the Attorney-General who permitted David to languish in Guantanamo for two years without legal counsel, permitted 2½ years to pass before he was charged, permitted the prosecution to charge him with offences made up after the fact, and permitted him to be tried in an illegal commissions system that was unacceptable for American and British citizens.
The [Australian] Attorney-General says David cannot come home because "Mr (former Australian Guantanamo inmate Mamdouh) Habib and the released UK citizens had neither been charged under the military commission process nor been designated as eligible for trial". The truth is Habib and two released British citizens were designated for commission by President Bush in July 2003 but are now free. Being designated for trial or charged does not prevent detainees from being released from Guantanamo.
The Attorney-General also claims David cannot come home because the US made it clear early on that a detainee would not be repatriated unless he would be prosecuted. More than 300 detainees have been released from Guantanamo without prosecution, including the Taliban's ambassador to Pakistan and detainees who fought with Osama bin Laden.
The Attorney-General's praise of the new commission's system is very similar to his praise of the previous illegal commission's system. Australia remains the only country that supports the commissions.
Recent media statements by Colonel Davis are a regurgitation of the charges laid against David in 2004, all of which have disappeared. David has never violated any valid law — Australian, US or international — and the Attorney-General knows that.
The reality is David Hicks is being left to be done over in another unfair system that is not good enough for anyone else so politicians don't have to admit they made mistakes. If the Attorney-General believes in Guantanamo and the commissions, all Australians who were in Afghanistan should be rounded up and sent there."
.
Comment
.
The U.S. administration has referred to Hicks as "the worst of the worst", but it has not alleged Hicks engaged in any direct acts of terrorism, nor that he fired on or killed any U.S. or Coalition soldiers.
Its for Hicks’ jailers to agree on legal charges anprove that he should be in jail. If they (the US) haven’t been able to try him after five years this strongly suggests the US has simply decided to keep him in prison - ignoring internationally accepted legal processes.
The obvious explanation is that this is an example of revenge for 9/11. As the US Government presides over the world’s only superpower it appears it can deliver vengeance or “justice” according to its own [Bush Administralian] rules (rather than international or even [usual] US law) whenever it chooses. The Australian Government has, for five years, decided that its military and political reliance on the US permits Australia’s political leaders to abrogate their responsibility to demand fair legal process for Hicks or his timely return to Australia."
-
[Fortunately Hicks was treated more fairly on his return to Australia in May 2007. I think it was neither in Hicks or Australia's interests for the then Howard Government to sacrifice the rights of its citizens to score alliance political ("Deputy Sheriff") points with the US.].
-
Pete
6 comments:
Much as I loathe and detest Islamist terrorists (7/7 is a day etched in my mind). I simply cannot see the justification for continuing to maintain Guantanamo.
I sometimes wonder if the US government has painted itself into a corner with Guantanamo. It was a load of people who may be very nasty indeed, or may have just been caught up in the invasion of Afghanistan and beyond, but now has no idea what to do with them - on the basis that releasing them would be a loss of face.
Me I think they shoud see sense and close the camp.
Dear Pete,
REF: "As the US is the world’s only superpower it can deliver vengence or “justice” according to its own rules (rather than international law) whereever it chooses."
Many American citizens are heartsick at the ways in which the US has disregarded international law. Domestic laws are being overridden at will, as well. IMHO, this is a reflection of the fact that it is 'easier' to overtly break laws, using fear as an excuse, versus work toward accomplishing necessary goals while acting within the law.
The current US administration does as it pleases - and everyone else is left to deal with the consequences.
redcat
redcat sums up nicely what i was about to say. i find it reprehensible that we routinely break international law when it comes to secret prisons and the abuses and torture that often goes on within. there was a time when we believed that our country was above that- now we know the truth. there are large numbers of us working towards an end to the senseless policies that are the hallmark of this particular administration. i think that we can make the world a safer place without resorting to these measures. true democracy comes with risks.
jams, redcat and betmo
Thanks for commenting. Sorry for not replying sooner as I'm looking after my children (from my first marriage) over the summer break has been taking up considerable time.
On 19 Jan 07 The Guardian http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1994379,00.html described the new rules just released by the US government under which Guantanamo suspects (including Hicks) will be tried - "...critics of the commissions raised the possibility that suspects could be convicted - or even executed - on hearsay evidence alone. They also hit out at the continued lack of provision for the hundreds of Guantánamo prisoners whose cases are not considered suitable for trial."
"Defendants will get access to all evidence presented against them, although they may see only summaries of some classified material [or not receive information of any classified evidence or accusations at all].
No minimum standards set out on the quality of evidence have been set out. Instead, judges are granted wide discretion to decide, on a case by case basis, whether hearsay or classified evidence may be allowed.
The rules specify that no statements obtained through torture will be allowed, although judges will again be able to decide whether evidence obtained through coercion can be used."
Note the US Defense Department (DoD)s broad definition of "coercion" frequently extends to what is considered torture under international law. The US DoD rules on when coercion is not torture were manufactured during Rumsfeld's control of the DoD and still form the basis of US doctrine.
Pete
David Hicks was captured along with the "American Taliban", John Walker Lindh, after their bunch of Taliban/Al Qaida fighters were defeated fighting the coalition and Nothern Alliance forces. This fact does not exactly make him "the worst of the worst", IMHO. BUT what would make this description appropriate would be the allegation that he helped in providing Bin Laden with intelligence on western targets for terrorist aims. Too bad the commissions were ruled "illegal" because the full evidence would finally have had to be revealed by the prosecution.
I agree that the Australian government officials have shirked their duty to one of their own. If asked, the US would have gladly turned him over. Why? Every Guantanamo detainee is now a "hot potato" and the USA is stuck with them because no other nation is willing to accept them back. So there it is. Can't get rid of them and can't try them (without creating a circus).
Meanwhile, after the US expended the most blood and fortune in the Afghan campaign to try to rid the world of this hotbed of bloodthirsty terrorists, we get to be villified by those who directly benefitted from this endeavor (who knows how many innocents were saved due to the disruption of Al Qaida's terror plans). The US public is asking "Is that fair?" What is the long term predictable consequence of this? If things get dangerously hot anywhere in the world in the future, whether it's in the ME, Africa, Russia, etc.. the response from the USA will be one of isolationism and provincial self-protection and self interest. This process has already begun. The US public has voted in the "don't meddle no matter what" leftist crowd. Darfur? Not our business. Coming soon.. Taiwan? Iran? North Korea? Why get involved and only incur the wrath and disdain from the international community? Not our business.
Roman
Thanks for your comments. I've replied at some length in my latest article.
Pete.
Post a Comment