Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

It was great to read Kevin Rudd's strong support of justice for David Hicks in my morning paper today, hinge. About time someone with some authority in federal politics showed a bit of spine about this!

And you beat me to the punch on Rob Hull's (Victoria's Attorney General) public pronouncement. I heard him on AM this morning reducing Ruddock's claim that Hicks is about to receive a "fair trial" soon to a bad joke. As Hulls put it: "Justice delayed is justice denied". Even first year uni legal students know that!

This whole Hicks fiasco is starting to look as though it's more about protecting the Australian federal government & what would be revealed if Hicks was returned to Australia to face the "charges" against him. I suspect the US would have gladly handed him over to the Oz authorities, some time ago, as they did in the case of the UK, Spain, etc.

... & I'm still waiting for that US announcement that the trials of the Guantanamo inmates will be definitely going ahead in mid-January. We have heard that claim from just one source, so far. I'd like to hear it from the horse's mouth.

Well, go Rudd!

Family put on hold for Hicks Christmas call
Penelope Debelle, Adelaide
December 15, 2006/the AGE

AFTER five years of detention at Guantanamo Bay without trial or sentence, Australian Taliban fighter David Hicks may be too traumatised to take a family phone call before Christmas.

With Hicks' case against the Federal Government listed for a preliminary hearing today in Sydney, his family has learnt that he may refuse the call because he was too psychologically fragile.

Father Terry Hicks said yesterday that the US military ?- who sent Hicks, 31, to the US military prison on Cuba after he was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001 ?- set out to break his son's spirit at Guantanamo Bay and may have succeeded. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/family-put-on-hold-for-hicks-christmas-call/2006/12/14/1165685825215.html

Oh great!
At least another year at Guantanamo?
Can he last that long?
Straight back to you, Mr Ruddock. What do you suggest now?

Hicks trial no closer after Bush legal win
Peter Mitchell in Washington
December 15, 2006/SMH

THE US President, George Bush, has scored the first victory in what is expected to be a new, drawn-out round of court battles with the Australian David Hicks and other Guantanamo Bay inmates.

A US District Court judge, James Robertson, ruled on Wednesday that the Federal Court no longer had jurisdiction to hear cases involving prisoners challenging their detention at the US military base in Cuba.

Guantanamo prisoners were stripped of their Federal Court access in October, when Mr Bush signed the controversial Military Commissions Act, Judge Robertson decided. .............

......... It is likely the highest court in the US, the Supreme Court, will be called on to make a final ruling on the legislation, a process that could take more than a year, leaving Mr Hicks in limbo again.

"The issues in these cases won't be finally resolved until the Supreme Court resolves them," David Remes, a lawyer who represents several Guantanamo prisoners, told The Washington Post. ... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hicks-trial-no-closer-after-bush-legal-win/2006/12/14/1165685828242.html

More on that Ruddock statement about Hicks being charged soon after 17th Of January. So, now it all becomes clear? :

From PM (ABC radio):

All bets are off according to David Hick's military defence lawyer Major Michael Mori. He's baffled by the Federal Government's recent claim that David Hicks will be charged soon after January the 17th next year.

MICHAEL MORI: I mean, I'm wondering where that information is coming from. The person whose decision it is on whether David will be charged hasn't even been hired for the job yet.

So if they're saying that "the fix is in" and David will automatically be charged, I think that just shows again the corruption of this system and that the politicians are driving what should really be an independent judicial system, and shows you the flaws in the process.

The Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock says there's no fix, instead he says progress is being made.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: When the military commission enactment passed the American Congress, it was on the 17th of October. Under their system, regulations which give effect to some of the detailed provisions, like we do under our law, have to be proclaimed within three months.

That means by the 17th of January, regulations must have been proclaimed, and may be proclaimed earlier, but that's the last date.

And what the American Attorney-General said to me was that his expectation was that soon after the proclamation the regulations charges would be laid. ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1811962.htm

Hicks' lawyers suffer setback
December 15, 2006 - 12:10PM/the Age

Lawyers for Australian terror suspect David Hicks have suffered a setback in their bid to have him freed from Guantanamo Bay.

Hicks' legal team appeared in the Federal Court today in an attempt to get an order for the Australian government to demand US authorities free the Adelaide man as soon as possible.

But Justice Brian Tamberlin instead ordered they return on February 26 so he can hear arguments from lawyers for the federal government about why they believe the court does not have power to hear the case. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-lawyers-suffer-setback/2006/12/15/1165685867832.html

US bans Hicks psychiatrist
By Penelope Debelle
December 19, 2006/the AGE

The US military has prevented a senior Melbourne psychiatrist from visiting David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay to provide an independent mental health assessment for his legal team.

Professor Paul Mullen - who The Age has discovered visited Hicks in February last year - said he was concerned at the psychological damage done to the Australian after five years of indefinite detention.

"No one is going to survive unharmed for this length of time," Professor Mullen said. "He doesn't know if he is going to be out next week or never get out. It is totally destabilising."

David Hicks' US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, has asked the Federal Government to intervene over the US Administration's refusal late last week to allow Professor Mullen to make a follow-up assessment of Hicks. Major Mori said he was given no reason for the refusal, which conflicts with a policy made two years ago allowing Professor Mullen to visit Hicks. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/us-bans-hicks-psychiatrist/2006/12/18/1166290481453.html

Hicks refuses father's call
Penelope Debelle, Adelaide
December 20, 2006 - 12:45PM/the AGE

David Hicks this morning twice refused to speak to his father in a pre-arranged telephone call to Guantanamo Bay.

The snub has added to concerns about the Australian terror suspect's deteriorating mental state after spending nine months in solitary confinement in the Cuban prison.

A tearful Terry Hicks said guards at the prison had tried to talk his son into speaking to him this morning, to no avail. "He just declined the call."

He said the guards tried twice within an hour to get Hicks, 31, to come to the phone, but he refused. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-refuses-fathers-call/2006/12/20/1166290586673.html

Letters supporting David Hicks from today's AGE letters to the editor:


Please forgive us for our callous inaction

HOW dreadfully sad to hear that David Hicks did not have the emotional or physical resources required to take his father's telephone call, which was months in the organising. I was stunned to learn that they have spoken only four or five times during this criminal five-year incarceration. May God forgive us for our callous inaction throughout this unjustifiable debacle.

Margaret Guest, Hawthorn East


Shame, PM

THE Government's refusal to demand the return of David Hicks, and its desire tohave him tried by military commissions rather than repatriation or trial in a court of law, tells us two things. First, John Howard values his friendship with George Bush above his responsibility to defend the rights of Australian citizens. Second, given that not even US citizens will be subject to military commissions, it is Howard's opinion that Australian citizens deserve fewer rights than American citizens. This disgraceful episode is a blight on Australia and should outrage all its citizens.

Eris Jolley, Hawthorn


The show goes on

HAVING recently completed 37 years in the British Army, I am well versed in the Geneva Convention, the law of armed conflict and human rights regarding the handling of prisoners. The US has failed to recognise these laws that I, and many others like me, have served to preserve. If, as we are led to believe, Australia is America's closest friend, then is it not time the Prime Minister insisted that David Hicks was brought home? He has now been denied access to his psychiatrist, a sure sign that all is not well. I suppose the bottom line is that the show must continue. And what a show trial it will be. Is that what we want? Is that why we have elected the Government ?- to be dictated to by those in power in the US? I think not. Please, Prime Minister, bring Hicks home now. What a Christmas present it would be for his brave family.

David Littlewood, Avenel

Fair go for all

DAVID Hicks' emotional and mental state is deteriorating rapidly, courtesy of Philip Ruddock and our Government. Meanwhile, Jack Thomas, who is no threat to this country, is pursued under the same pretext ?- the "war on terror" ?- and is to be retried. Laws that are meant to protect us from terrorists are usedto pursue a non-terrorist. Security agenciesthat are meant to protect us from terrorists waste their time, energy and our money pursuing a non-terrorist. Thomas is the victim of the syndrome that is destroying Hicks ?- the political show trial. Our Government pretends it cares about Hicks. But nothing can cover up the humanitarian crime it has been party to: five years without trial in that shameful hell hole that negates our principles of justice.

For them, it is better that Hicks be driven insane than return to Australia to tell his story. Nor can they afford to allow Thomas to go free. But we, the people, don't want the "war on terror" used for political purposes.

We want basic principles of justice and Australian values respected ?- human rights and a fair go for all.

Colin Mitchell, Brunswick

http://www.theage.com.au/letters/index.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

Thinking of David Hicks on this Christmas Eve & wishing that he was home with his family.
Maybe by next Christmas?

Issues like this make me ashamed to be an American. 5 years of the prime of his life wasted away.

Yes.

Nick, it makes me ashamed to be Australian. Other governments (the British, Spanish & even the US(! ) & others) have not allowed their citizens to be treated so shamefully. They have brought them home to face justice there. But not my (Australian) government. All the way with the USA appears to be the motto. This has meant that David Hicks is the last remaining inmate from the so-called "civilized countries" to still be languishing there. This government simply doesn't care enough to rock the boat in any way that might offend the US government. I suspect, in the not too distant future that both the Australian & US governments will wish they had acted earlier, because he will either be too ill, will have lost his sanity or will die in detention if he is not removed from there soon. And their regrets will be simply because civilized people will be outraged that such a shocking miscarriage of justice was ever allowed to occur.
I think about the other remaining inmates at Guantanamo, too. Who knows what their stories are & what will happen to them?

Criminals treated better
Ian Munro
December 31, 2006/the AGE

FIVE years ?- 1825 days ?-

... Measured by the legal system, five years' loss of freedom is substantial: sufficient deterrent for would-be drug importers, at the upper end of sentencing for culpable drivers, and something like the punishment for a drunken driver with multiple victims.

........ But examining sentences does offer a sense of the weight given to time in prison, such as the five years already lived in custody by Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks. Unlike Hicks, however, the sexual offenders, the drink-driving killers, the drug importers, and the US marine who participated in the killing of an innocent Iraqi grandfather know early on the length of the period they will be incarcerated.

Hicks will receive no credit for time spent in US custody when, and if, he is sentenced by the reformed military commissions that are intended to try him, whereas sentences in Australia are discounted for time spent in jail awaiting trial.

Only in exceptional circumstances would an Australian prisoner serve long periods in isolation, as Hicks has done.

He is also believed to have co-operated with his captors. More than two years ago the American 60 Minutes program cited a US interrogator, identified as Tom, who said Hicks had co-operated readily and given insights into al-Qaeda training camps.

By no measure is Hicks' treatment comparable with that Australians accept for their own. Five years without charge, while held in solitary confinement and apparently in deteriorating mental health, would ensure his release on bail while the case against him was finalised.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/criminals-treated-better/2006/12/30/1166895526092.html

Fraser says Howard 'betrayed' Hicks


The Stars and Stripes flies over Guanatanamo Bay where Australian terror suspect David Hicks is being held.
Photo: AP
January 1, 2007 - 1:57PM

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser has accused the Howard Government of betraying terror suspect David Hicks, saying he never thought he would see the day when Australia would stop providing justice to all its citizens.

Hicks has been detained by the US at its Camp X-Ray Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba since January 2002, a month after his capture among Taliban forces in Afghanistan.

The 31-year-old Adelaide man has recently refused visits from Australian consular officials.

Asked what he saw as different today to when he was in government 30 years ago, Mr Fraser said western democracies, including Australia, had "depart(ed) from the rule of law and due process and justice to all citizens as we have".

"Nobody knows if David Hicks is guilty or innocent, although the prime minister has said he has not offended Australian law, which should give an indication the way (in which) he has been totally deserted by the Australian government," Mr Fraser told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

Hicks pleaded not guilty in August 2004 to charges of attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy.

But those charges were struck out by the US Supreme Court in June this year when the court ruled the military commissions were unlawful.

The US government has rewritten the commission rules, and the Australian government has said Hicks is likely to be charged again early this year.

"The way lies after lies after lies have been said about how he's going to be tried ... there is no respectable legal authority that I know of that has suggested those military tribunals are going to be anything more than a victor's tribunal," Mr Fraser said.

"The British started to outlaw evidence taken by torture 500 years ago and now we accept it and we accept it in Hicks's case."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/fraser-says-howard-betrayed-hicks/2007/01/01/1167500049167.html

Top brass breaks ranks on Hicks
January 2, 2007/SMH



THE woman appointed the nation's first director of military prosecutions to the new Australian Military Court has described the treatment of David Hicks as abominable.

............. Asked about the treatment of Mr Hicks, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for more than five years and is not currently charged with any offences, she did not hesitate. "Abominable," she said. "Quite frankly, I think it's wrong. I don't care what he's done or alleged to have done. I think he's entitled to a trial and a fair one and he is entitled to be charged and dealt with as quickly as is possible. As is anybody."

As for the military tribunals the Americans have set up to deal with Mr Hicks, the Brigadier said: "Maybe they should have a good look at us."

Her comments follow remarks by the former prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday that the Australian Government had "totally deserted" Mr Hicks. ......

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/top-brass-breaks-ranks-on-hicks/2007/01/01/1167500061864.html

bm

Thank you for your interest, nimh.

From where I sit, it feels like no one much gives a damn about what happens to David Hicks. Of course, he is only one of many who have been imprisoned at Guantanamo Bay for so long. But he is at least a person we can put an identity to. God knows about the personal details of the others.
As you can see, there has been (finally!) a growing chorus of outrage & dissent in Australia, lately from "high places", about the Australian government's inaction on David Hicks. But it's taken 5 years to reach this point. Our government has continually pushed the line that he cannot be brought home & tried here because we don't have the laws to deal with his "crimes". The US stalls & stalls & one wonders if these trials will actually ever happen. He will probably not be in a fit state to respond to the (as yet not clearly identified) "charges" against him, anyway, if & when he actually is tried. In the meantime, David Hicks remains in solitary confinement, his mental & physical health reported to be deteriorating at an alarming rate. He wasn't even up to taking a phone call from his family this Christmas. How can the Australian & US governments possibly justify this? 5 years & no trial. It's disgraceful.

From where I sit, it feels like no one much gives a damn about Guantanamo Bay, period, or about the people that have been kidnapped and held in undisclosed locations by the US without any trial, let alone a fair one.

Its sad.

Indeed, nimh.

And a blatant denial of justice.




(A thought: If, down the track, the current Guantanamo inmates are found to be no more "guilty" than those who have been allowed to go free in the US, UK & elsewhere, what sort of "compensation" could they pursue under international law? (Not that anything could compensate them for the years of hell they've had to endure.) )