Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

Outcry over Hicks sentence 'fix'
Misha Schubert and Mark Coultan
April 2, 2007/the AGE

OUTCRY has erupted in the US over the secret deal struck by a Bush Administration appointee to slash David Hicks' jail term to just nine more months.

US Defence Department lawyer Susan Crawford, who oversees the US military tribunals, bypassed the prosecution to reach a pre-trial agreement directly with the defence.

But her actions, interpreted by some US newspapers as a political favour to Bush ally Prime Minister John Howard in an election year, shocked the prosecutors on the case and the American legal establishment.

Lead prosecutor Colonel Morris "Moe" Davis was kept in the dark about the plea deal. He was astounded by the nine-month sentence, telling The Washington Post: "I wasn't considering anything that didn't have two digits", referring to a sentence of at least 10 years.

Ms Crawford's deal, which includes a gag on Hicks talking to the media for 12 months, also overrode the sentence of the military panel, which had agreed to seven years.

A spokesman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said he was not aware that the Australian Government had put any view to the Americans on the length of sentence.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer yesterday said the timing of Hicks' release after the federal election was a coincidence.

But American commentators were not convinced. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/outcry-over-hicks-sentence-fix/2007/04/01/1175366078719.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Is that John Howard, or perhaps Philip Ruddock, cleverly disguised in that Afro, which has mysteriously appeared in that respectable report, above? :wink:

We in Oz are hearing a great deal of analysis about the "real" guilt or innocence of David Hicks, in the light of manipulation of the US military findings.
Was a deal done to get him a far lighter sentence as a favour to the Australian government in an Oz election year? (Of course it was!)

But, really, what is this all about, anyway?
This seems to me to be more about this US administration (via it's dodgy military tribunals) having the power to decide on the guilt or innocence of anyone opposing it's policies & actions.

No, I am not saying that David Hicks is a "hero".
I am saying that the current US government is far more guilty of crimes against humanity than David Hicks could ever be. His real "crime" was to oppose that government by his actions. That what was he was being tried for.

I'm heartily sick & tired of "the Hicks issue" being evaluated unquestionably in the media through the prism of the interests of this current US government & it's lackey Australian government.

Just hearing now confirmation that there were no laws in place that Hicks "broke" at the time of his alleged "crime".

Six years of torture for supporting an organisation that the US of A clandestinely supported, funded, and directed.

Hicks would probably be wise not to make a civil case of this.

He'll make more money exposing the ruse with the many tabloids wanting his story.

It's not surprising that part of his plea-bargain included a twelve month ban on his talking to the media.

The Australian media is still full of the David Hicks issue, largely to do with the legality & "enforceability" (is there such a word?) of the "gag" on him speaking publicly, questions about just how involved our government was in the negotiations & the terms of his sentence ..... It was interesting that Oz attorney-general, Philip Ruddock, said our laws didn't prohibit him from speaking out during his "gag" period ...
I haven't been able to be online much for the last couple of days, so haven't been able to post the relevant information here. Quite a lot of it is fairly repetitive though .... going over & over details of the sentence & the conditions for David Hicks's return to Oz.

This article, written by the US ambassador to Australia & printed a couple of days ago in the AGE newspaper received quite a few spirited responses in the Letters to the Editor column.: :wink:

It is a myth that the Guantanamo camps are hell on earth
Robert D. McCallum
April 2, 2007/the AGE

AS I HAVE travelled around Australia and spoken with the Australian people, I have become increasingly concerned regarding the misinformation that persists about conditions at Guantanamo Bay. While I worked at the US Department of Justice, I visited the detention centre at Guantanamo Bay and have seen the conditions first hand. I believe it is time to set the record straight on the conditions that David Hicks and the other detainees are held under.

Guantanamo is a maximum-security detention centre for those deemed to be dangerous enemy combatants. The men held at Guantanamo are all associated with al-Qaeda or the Taliban. Their detention allows the collection of intelligence and prevents them from rejoining the armed conflict against American and allied forces.

Guantanamo is no resort, but it meets or exceeds standards found in modern prison facilities. Numerous international delegations and foreign government officials from more than 30 countries have visited the facility. On one such inspection by the Organisation for Security Co-operation in Europe, a Belgian representative concluded that it was a "model prison" in which inmates were treated better than in Belgian jails. The International Committee of the Red Cross has met all detainees in private sessions and routinely consults with the US on its detention operations.

All detainees at Guantanamo are provided with three meals a day that meet cultural (halal) dietary requirements. The facility provides sheltered living areas with beds, mattresses, sheets, and flush toilets. Detainees receive adequate clothing, including shoes and uniforms, and the normal range of hygiene items, such as a toothbrush, toothpaste, soap, and shampoo.

Detainees have broad opportunities to practise their Muslim faith, including the requisite calls to prayer, prayer beads, rugs, and copies of the Koran. The facility provides outstanding medical care to every detainee, the same quality US service members receive. In 2005, the US completed a new camp hospital to treat detainees. There have been more than 300 surgeries and 5000 dental procedures. Detainees have received nearly 3000 voluntary vaccinations, including diphtheria, tetanus, mumps, measles, and rubella. All detainees are offered at least two hours per day in outside recreation areas.

The staff is committed to safe, secure supervision of the detainees. They have a tough job and face very real personal dangers. In a one-year period, the combatants at Guantanamo assaulted guards 432 times with bodily fluids, such as a frequently used, noxious combination of semen, faeces, and urine. There were also 227 physical assaults and 99 efforts to incite a riot or disturbance.

Torture or abuse of detainees is not tolerated. All credible allegations of abuse of detainees are investigated, and the US has not hesitated to prosecute criminally or discipline administratively any guards who violate those standards, regardless of provocation.

In spite of these dangers, detainees are never shackled to the floor in their cells. When meeting visitors, detainees are secured to the floor, a common practice in high-security facilities around the world.

There is no such thing as solitary confinement at Guantanamo. Holding a detainee in a single cell, something many inmates in other types of prisons and detention centres frequently request, is simply not the same as punitive isolation. Detainees in single cells always receive outside recreation time and have contact with other detainees each day. Detainees are not forced to participate in interrogations. They may decline other meetings, including meetings with their own lawyers, with consular officials from their countries, and calls to their families.

Detainees can send and receive monitored mail on a regular basis, and occasional telephone calls are permitted. The detainees also have access to a library with 5000 titles, with books available in English, Arabic, and other languages.

Frequent use of outdated video footage simply doesn't accurately depict the Guantanamo Bay facility.

It is a model prison, modern and secure. It is the most inspected, most transparent detention facility in the world.

_Robert D. McCallum jnr is the US ambassador to Australia.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/it-is-a-myth-that-the-guantanamo-camps-are-hell-on-earth/2007/04/01/1175366072895.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

With reference to the enforceability issue, I am reminded of the Rainbow Warrior bombers from France who were supposedly imprisoned I think, on a Fiji island. Both went home to France (after the media circus died down) for medical treatment and somehow forgot to return for the rest of their sentence.

Major Mori, today, on the conditions of David Hicks's pre-trial agreement.:


Breach could send Hicks back to GuantanamoApril 4, 2007 - 12:41PM

David Hicks could be sent back to Guantanamo Bay to serve the rest of his seven years term if he breaches his pre-trial agreement by speaking to the media, his military lawyer says.

Major Michael Mori today said Hicks was focused on returning to Australia and could not have asked for a better sentence than going home within 60 days.

Hicks, who has spent five years in the US' military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after being captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, last week pleaded guilty to a charge of giving material support to terrorists.

Under a plea deal negotiated between Hicks' lawyers and the US military commission, he will be returned to Australia to serve nine months in an Adelaide prison before being set free.

He also agreed not to speak to the media for a year or allege he was mistreated while in detention.

Major Mori today said that if Hicks breached any of the conditions in the plea bargain - such as by speaking to the media - he could be forced to serve out the entire seven-year sentence, that is to be suspended after the nine months.

"Violating many of the provisions of pre-trial agreement actually could require him to serve the remainder of the sentence hanging over his head," Major Mori told the ABC's 7.30 Report.

"He could potentially be brought back to Guantanamo to serve it.

"I hope that doesn't happen. I hope the media respects that he's under oath, under obligation not to talk to media, and they don't try to set him up for failure."

Major Mori said that if authorities believed the pre-trail agreement had been violated, under the military commission rules they would hold a hearing to determine if a breach had occurred.

He said he did not know if the gag was a curse or a blessing, but added that Hicks needed time to himself when he returned to Australia.

"I do think David needs a period of time to get back to Australia, to decompress from this whole situation, to get back in touch with his family, get back into his education, finish his high school qualification, without the media harassing him," Major Mori said.

But Major Mori would not speculate on the reasons for the gag order, or detail arguments made to him supporting the condition.

"I can certainly see where people have questions," he said.

"Obviously, if you have questions or concerns you ought to ask the people that might have made those decisions."

Major Mori said he could also understand the perception that convening authority Susan Crawford, the top military commission official, had done the Australian government a favour in sentencing, but "that's probably a good question to ask them".

He also repeatedly avoided confirming whether he stuck by previous comments that the military commission was a political show trial.

Hicks' lawyers' have already submitted a request to the Australian government for him to be transferred back to Australia, but Major Mori said he did not know exactly how long it would be until Hicks was back in South Australia.

Meanwhile, Major Mori said he hoped his own life could return to normal following his protracted advocacy for Hicks but would not comment on whether he would pay a price for his criticism of the US administration over the last few years.

"I'm looking forward to spending more time with my family and getting on with my career," he said.

He admitted becoming attached to Hicks since first visiting him in Guantanamo in December 2003.

"In some ways I became his only conduit to the outside world and worrying about his life needs and making sure he got his mail on time," he said.

"And I'm glad to have done that for him because I just saw an Australian person there in an unfortunate situation and I was going to do the best I could for him."

AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/breach-could-send-hicks-back-to-guantanamo/2007/04/04/1175366296439.html

Ah yes, I remember that episode well!

A joke & an insult, that was!

At last!

They've found the source of "the gag"!

It was some guy in the US military we've heard nothing about till now. He thought it was a good idea.

In fact, he originally thought a longer gag might be a better idea!

He also thought it would be a terrific idea to gag the whole of David Hicks's family, but that didn't go down too well.

So there you go, folks.
The gag had nothing, repeat nothing to do with the Australian government's wishes.

Have you got that straight now? :wink: :






..... Brigadier-General Thomas Hemingway said the gag was his idea.

"I thought it appropriate, given all the rhetoric that was floating around, that it would be appropriate if he would agree not to talk to the press or other media for a while," he said.

General Hemingway is the legal adviser to the military tribunal convening authority, which can approve reductions in sentences.

He negotiated the deal with Major Michael Mori, Hicks' military defence counsel. ......


............ Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has rejected suggestions that the Hicks deal was a political "fix" between Canberra and Washington.

Mr Ruddock has said Australian authorities spoke broadly to their US counterparts about sentencing, but were not privy to the details of the plea deal.

Backing Mr Ruddock's statements, General Hemingway said he inserted the gag order on his own initiative. "It was my idea," he said. "I just thought … it was time for Hicks to spend some time thinking about why he was where he was, and worry about publicity after that. I never received any direction of any kind from your Government in Canberra or from the embassy in Washington, DC.

"They probably know me well enough to know I might have taken exception to any direction I thought was uncalled for."

Amid claims that the gag was imposed for a year to silence Hicks before this year's federal election, General Hemingway said he had originally proposed a two-year ban, but this had been reduced to one year during negotiation.

He also said he had agreed to the relatively short period of nine months' imprisonment, with the rest of the sentence suspended, because he knew Australia had laws that could control Hicks' movements after his release. "We knew under Australian law that the Australian Federal Police can apply if they think it's appropriate for a control order," he said.

The original draft of the agreement tried to ban Hicks' family and third parties speaking on his behalf.

But the judge in charge of the commissions struck out the references to his family, pointing out that an agreement could not bind someone who had not signed it. ...............

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-gag-my-idea-us-general/2007/04/04/1175366326258.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Last Update: Thursday, April 5, 2007. 1:00pm (AEST)

Hicks lobby group delivers 65,000 protest letters


Protest: Get Up collected 10,000 postcards signed by voters in Bennelong. (ABC News: Giulio Saggin)

A lobby group that has been campaigning for convicted terrorism supporter David Hicks has delivered 65,000 protest letters to the Prime Minister's Sydney electorate office.

The group Get Up says the letters criticise the Government's handling of the case.

Get Up has also brought more than 10,000 postcards, signed by voters in John Howard's seat of Bennelong, questioning the fairness of the US military commission system in Guantanamo Bay.

Bennelong resident Barbara Ford says Hicks's nine-month sentence has not done anything to correct the system he was held under.

"Mr Howard may be feeling quite satisfied now that this has ended satisfactorily but for us it hasn't," she said.

Get Up is accusing the Federal Government of "diminishing Australia" by allowing Hicks to be imprisoned for five years without trial, despite reports of mistreatment and abuse.

The group says Australians have now lost faith that the Government will come to their aid if they are treated unjustly overseas.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1890677.htm

I've heard that the gag cannot be enforced in Australia. In fact, since it wasn't a US "court", a good deal of the orders can't be enforced here.

Wilso, it's starting to look as though the only folk who've actually been gagged are David Hicks's lawyers! Such diplomatic media comments!:wink:

He is allowed to go home so long as he doesn't engage in Free Speech.

Well, that's the theory, Nick.

But there's nothing in our laws that stops him from speaking out about what has happened to him.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s1885198.htm

Broadcast: 29/03/2007

John Clarke, Bryan Dawe and the Hicks trial
Reporter: Bryan Dawe


KERRY O'BRIEN: Finally, John Clarke and Bryan Dawe on the Hicks trial.

BRYAN DAWE: Mr Downer, thank you very much for your time.

JOHN CLARKE: It's very good to be with you, Bryan, and good evening.

BRYAN DAWE: Can you explain to me the legal process we're seeing with the David Hicks trial?

JOHN CLARKE: Mr Hicks has now, of course, pleaded guilty to providing material support for a terrorist organisation.

BRYAN DAWE: But Mr Downer, wasn't pleading guilty the only way he was going to get home?

JOHN CLARKE: Bryan, I would have thought if you plead guilty to something, it's because you did it.

BRYAN DAWE: And what if you plead not guilty?

JOHN CLARKE: Well, if you lie on oath, Bryan, they're going to chuck the book at you. I wouldn't advise you to do that. That could be dangerous.

BRYAN DAWE: Can you explain the legal process to us?

JOHN CLARKE: The auspices here, Bryan, are those of a US constituted military commission. Have you seen the artist's impressions drawings? That's very much the situation as you see it.

BRYAN DAWE: This is David Hicks here?

JOHN CLARKE: That's David Hicks here, this is the judge over here.

BRYAN DAWE: This is Major Mori?

JOHN CLARKE: Major Mori, yes, indeed.

BRYAN DAWE: Who's that there?

JOHN CLARKE: That there is the White Rabbit, slightly blurred because he's running late.

BRYAN DAWE: Where's Alice?

JOHN CLARKE: Alice is over here.

BRYAN DAWE: Behind the red queen.

JOHN CLARKE: Indeed.

BRYAN DAWE: How does it all work? This is not coming under US law, is it, this trial?

JOHN CLARKE: This is a constituted, slightly different jurisdiction. It's a US military commission, that's being conducted in a jail in Cuba.

BRYAN DAWE: And how is it different?

JOHN CLARKE: Whereas normally, Bryan, you would be charged with something and then you would be tried and if you were found guilty you would then be sentenced.

BRYAN DAWE: How's this one different, then?

JOHN CLARKE: In this case, slightly different jurisdiction, Bryan, you serve your sentence, and then, after some years of that, you're charged.

BRYAN DAWE: Mmm.

JOHN CLARKE: And then, perhaps, you're tried.

BRYAN DAWE: And what are you charged with?

JOHN CLARKE: Oh, anything. In this case, perhaps, providing material support for a terrorist organisation.

BRYAN DAWE: Yeah. And where do you serve your sentence?

JOHN CLARKE: In a room about sort of this by this. It's very attractive, affording excellent vistas of the toilet, for example.

BRYAN DAWE: When are you tried?

JOHN CLARKE: You're tried after you're charged.

BRYAN DAWE: After you're served your sentence?

JOHN CLARKE: Having served the majority, for some years, maybe five or six years.

BRYAN DAWE: What do you do when you're charged?

JOHN CLARKE: Oh, you plead guilty.

BRYAN DAWE: Why do you plead guilty?

JOHN CLARKE: Because you've already served your sentence, you don't want to be tried. You've probably had enough by then. Time to go home.

BRYAN DAWE: Novelty has worn off?

JOHN CLARKE: The thrill has gone, Bryan, let's get out of here.

BRYAN DAWE: So why didn't the Australian Government get him out, Mr Downer?

JOHN CLARKE: Everybody is entitled to a fair trial. That is a fundamental right.

BRYAN DAWE: Mr Downer, thanks for your time.

JOHN CLARKE: Now you just plead guilty, Bryan, and I think I can get you out of here.

Thanks for the laugh, Deb. I missed that one.

Gotta love Clarke & Dawe!