Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

Last Update: Friday, January 19, 2007. 9:38am (AEDT)

Hicks's lawyer blasts new guidelines


Guantanamo Bay: Major Michael Mori has criticised the guidelines (file photo). (Lateline)

David Hicks's American lawyer says new guidelines for his client's military trial are unfair and do not improve on the previous flawed system.

Major Michael Mori says the guidelines released by the Pentagon still do not include fundamental rights such as habeas corpus.

He has also criticised their retrospective nature.

"A law has been passed in 2006 that is being applied retroactively to someone for conduct five years ago," he said.

"That's not acceptable.

"Even the Australian ministers have said creating legislation now and applying it to David retroactively is inappropriate, and yet that's exactly what the United States is doing to David, which we would not accept for Americans."

Major Mori says he expects the guidelines to be challenged.

But he says by the time they are, Mr Hicks could have spent nine or 10 years in Guantanamo Bay without trial.

Major Mori has urged Australia's Attorney-General Philip Ruddock not to accept the new rules.

"Unfortunately what we've seen in the past under the illegal system is that the Attorney-General just went right along with whatever his American counterparts told him and didn't exercise any independent judgement," he said.

"Yet will that happen again? Will he be fooled twice? That's the question." ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1829763.htm

Will he be fooled again?

Ha! Only if he chooses to be! :wink:

Some insight from Major Mori about likely the identity of the "someone" quoted by Phillip Ruddock yesterday's quote about Hicks's "mental fitness" to face trial.:

Hicks like 'a monkey in a cage'

....Mr Downer said his comments were based on a meeting someone had with Hicks inside Guantanamo Bay in the past week, but refused to reveal who that person was.

But Major Mori said he understood Hicks had been "put on display for some visiting dignitaries".

"He's being used as a monkey in a cage for people to come to stare at," he said.

The party included officials from the US embassy in Australia, Major Mori said, and there were no health professionals involved.

"What I'm concerned about is, I don't believe David would want to reveal the problems he's having to the people who are controlling his life down there," Major Mori said. .....

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/a-monkey-in-a-cage/2007/01/19/1169095944214.html

Here he is again! Alexander Downer, the very same Oz federal minister for foreign affairs who was sold on "someone's" assessment of David Hicks's fitness to face trial. Yeah sure, let David Hicks's legal team make appeal after appeal to the US Supreme Court & elsewhere, Alexander ..... Too bad if it adds years to the time he's already spent in detention without a trial!:

Last Update: Friday, January 19, 2007. 6:05pm (AEDT)

Downer welcomes new rules for Guantanamo trials

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has welcomed the publication of new US rules to put Guantanamo Bay detainees, including Australian David Hicks, on trial.

Mr Hicks's defence team and the Opposition have criticised the new military commission system, which allows the admission of hearsay evidence and testimony gathered under coercion.

Mr Downer says the challenge now is for the US to charge Mr Hicks so his case can be heard.

"Let the military commission hear those charges and if David Hicks and his defence want to appeal against any adverse decision that may come forward from the military commission, they can," he said.

"They can appeal all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States."

The Law Council of Australia says the new military commission rules have thrown the right to silence out the window.

Law Council president Tim Bugg says the new rules heighten the group's concern that Mr Hicks will not have access to justice.

"I can't imagine for a moment that the Americans would allow their citizens to be treated this way and of course they couldn't be," he said.

"Our Government has got to reassess its position, it's got to reaffirm that an Australian citizen must be given proper process."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1830129.htm

David Hicks is an impossible situation. Between a rock & a hard place. Should he accept the unacceptable new "rules" & hope for a speedy trial, or be willing to endure even more delays as a result of potentially endless legal appeals?
After 5 years in Guantanamo Bay, with absolutely no support from his own government, I wouldn't blame him (& his legal team) for any compromises they might choose to make to get this over with as quickly as possible.

Government scrambles to avoid Hicks delay fallout
Carmel Egan
January 21, 2007/Sunday AGE

THE Federal Government's refusal to bring David Hicks home could backfire with moves in the United States to reinstate the legal rights of Guantanamo Bay detainees likely to further delay his trial.

As Hicks enters his sixth year in prison without trial, Prime Minister John Howard is confronting an election-year revolt by his own back bench over the 31-year-old's treatment.

Despite assurances by Foreign Minister Alexander Downer that Hicks would be tried by a special military commission within weeks rather than months, the introduction of a new bill into the US Congress could delay hearings until next year.

A powerful group of US senators yesterday vowed to overturn President George Bush's abolition of habeas corpus for Guantanamo Bay inmates, which denies them the right to challenge the legality of their detention through the civil courts.

Rebel Queensland National senator Barnaby Joyce said he "didn't care if this is an issue for the federal election campaign". He intended to fight for "one of the fundamental legs on which a democracy stands".

Senator Joyce said it was embarrassing Australia had to rely on the US Congress to defend such a fundamental right.

"You can't have a judicial system without habeas corpus," Senator Joyce said. "The idea of making this an issue solely about David Hicks distracts from what we are really talking about, which is the primacy of a fair judicial system. It is an outrage."

Adelaide-born Hicks was imprisoned in the notorious Cuban detention centre after being captured by Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan in December 2001 and handed over to the US military in early 2002. He and other Guantanamo Bay detainees were stripped of the legal right to challenge their imprisonment when the Military Commissions Act of 2006 was signed into law by President Bush in October.

The bill allowed the President to circumvent a decision by the US Supreme Court that had found the original military commissions were illegal.

Leading Democrats and rebel Republican senators have confirmed they will move quickly to challenge the President's abolition of habeas corpus.

A spokesman for Democrat senator Patrick Leahy, who this week assumes the chair of the powerful Senate Judicial Committee, told The Sunday Age restoration of habeas corpus was a top priority and "something I feel very strongly about".

David Hicks' Australian lawyer David McLeod welcomed the move. "Habeas corpus is in Magna Carta and is the basis of the Westminister system," he said.

"The problem with removing it is that Hicks and the other detainees have been precluded from challenging the legality of the (military) commission and their detention until they are convicted. Instead of waiting until 2009 or 2010 to gain access to the civilian courts (after any conviction before the military commission), it could bring it forward to 2008, 2009," Mr McLeod said.

Despite the likelihood of further delays in his son's trial, the decision to pursue the restoration act was welcomed by Hicks' father, Terry. "I think it is great that someone in Congress is going to take this up," he said. "If it does hold up the commission, it will be interesting to see what stand the Australian Government takes, but I know they will just throw it back on David's defence, saying that is causing the delay.

"The President will go all-out to squash this, but at least it keeps the momentum going."

Hicks' American lawyer, Major Michael Mori, doubted the success of the challenge in Congress. "It could take months to get it done, and what if the President vetoes it?" Major Mori asked.

In addition to the abolition of habeas corpus, the commission guidelines released last week allow hearsay evidence and testimony obtained through "coercive interrogation" to be admitted in military commission hearings of non-Americans charged with terrorism.

Major Mori said there was nothing in the recent history of the US that could compare with the stripping of prisoners' rights or the make-up of the military commission.

"We have not done a commission for 60 years," he said. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-tries-to-avoid-hicks-fallout/2007/01/20/1169096027850.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

hey hey, ho ho, little Johnny has to go!

I'll second that!

... & little Phillip!

.... & little Alexander!

.&, &, & ......!

......A new report by the cross-party British Foreign Affairs Committee has condemned Guantanamo Bay as failing to meet even basic British standards for prisoners.

The report warns the facility "fails to achieve minimum United Kingdom standards on access to exercise and recreation, to lawyers, and to the outside world through educational facilities and the media".

It also concludes that "abuse of detainees at Guantanamo Bay has almost certainly taken place in the past, but we believe it is unlikely to be taking place now".

Hicks' Australian-based lawyer, David McLeod, said the British report highlighted what everyone had been saying for years.

"The detention falls below appropriate standards and doesn't accord with international treaties that Australia has signed up to," he said.

Hicks' father, Terry, agreed.

"I've been saying for years that this place is not up to standard and the way that they treat the detainees that are being held there, and now the British people come out and say the same thing," Mr Hicks said.

Opposition legal affairs spokesman Kelvin Thomson said evidence was mounting that Hicks could not be reasonably detained there any longer.

"We think that David Hicks should not be detained in Guantanamo Bay but should be released in the United States or returned to Australia on the basis that he presents himself for any trial which may subsequently occur," he said.

"The conclusions of the British parliamentary committee that you don't have the most basic standards applying at Guantanamo Bay adds weight to our view about the fact that David Hicks has been there for too long and ought now to be released."

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock was in transit but a spokesman said: "We've been assured the facilities at Guantanamo Bay are modelled on maximum security prisons in the United States".

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/report-boosts-hickss-case/2007/01/21/1169330751625.html

Why am I not surprised?:

Open or shut: Hicks case may be empty
Phillip Coorey Chief Political Correspondent
January 22, 2007/Sydney Morning Herald

THE two embassies that David Hicks was accused of staking out as part of his al-Qaeda training were abandoned at the time.

Mr Hicks's charge sheet, made public in 2004, included allegations that "on or about August 2001" he conducted surveillance on the British and US embassies in the Afghan capital, Kabul.

The alleged offence, which was part of the charge of conspiracy levelled against Mr Hicks, dissolved when the US Supreme Court ruled last year that the military commissions were illegal. But the offence is likely to be reconstituted when Mr Hicks is charged under the new military commission system.

The US Military Commission chief prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, mentioned the alleged embassy surveillance in interviews last week in which he said Mr Hicks was a fully fledged al-Qaeda operative. "He conducted surveillance on the US embassy and other embassies," he said.

Inquiries by the Herald show the British and US embassies were abandoned in 1989 as Afghanistan plunged into civil war in the wake of the 10-year Soviet occupation.

The British embassy was reopened in December 2001, four months after Mr Hicks's alleged surveillance and a month after his capture. The US embassy, which had been maintained by Afghan employees since 1989, was reopened in January 2002.

Mr Hicks's Adelaide lawyer, David McLeod, said the embassy allegation was a sign that the US authorities were "really scratching around for charges". ... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/hicks-case-may-be-empty/2007/01/21/1169330767575.html

(For those of you in not-Oz places, from left to right: the minister for foreign affairs (Alexander Downer), the attorney-general (Philip Ruddock) & of course, Oz PM, JH (aka "the deputy sheriff".)

Here's a turn-up! But you'd have to be Australian, preferably Victorian, to understand why this is such a surprise. Trust me, it is! But then, you'd have to have the experience of being "Jeffed" to understand!. As a former premier if the state of Victoria, Jeff was not exactly known for his "compassion & understanding" of ordinary folk. Well good for him! Just goes to show the extent of the support for David Hicks in even conservative places these days!:

Hicks' repatriation overdue: Kennett

THE Australian Government should use its special relationship with the US to get David Hicks repatriated immediately, former premier Jeff Kennett says, as tough British criticisms of Guantanamo Bay conditions are set to further fire up Liberal backbenchers.

Mr Kennett said Australia had shown "no compassion, no understanding at all" towards Mr Hicks. He is in his sixth year of detention and is facing the possibility of further delays before being brought to trial.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-repatriation-overdue-kennett/2007/01/21/1169330766419.html

Members of Amnesty International protest in Melbourne.
Photo: Craig Abraham

From today's The Australian (page 4 [polls re Howard etc]












Related online report

Thank you for posting that, Walter.
Those results are a remarkable improvement on just say, six months ago, when the "Hicks issue" was dead in the water here. Very few Australians even thought about David Hicks's predicament then, say nothing of caring about his situation. It was just assumed that he must be getting whatever he deserved, because our good ally, the US, had said so!. It seems that concerted campaign to educate the public about David Hicks is working! It also has a lot to do with growing disapproval here of GWB's approach to Iraq, I think. (Our PM must be the only remaining political "leader" in the world who uncritically accepts the "surge" (or anything the US does) is a good move! I notice in this morning's paper that the new opposition (ALP) leader is making significant gains in the polls as preferred leader. The winds of change?) Anyway, what's most striking to me about the poll you posted is the significant number of Coaltion (conservative) voters who now are concerned about how the US & the Australian government's have handled the Hicks case. Now that's movement!

Ah. This is what I've been alluding to.
What do you do if you're in between a rock & a hard place, with such ruthless, powerful forces working against you? Who would blame David Hicks if he was willing to do almost anything to get out of there?
The sole motivations of the US & Australian governments at this point would be to save face & avoid any further damaging political fall-out. If & when the Hicks case actually goes to trial, the media scrutiny & resultant interest, world-wide, will be huge .... he will have to be seen to be "guilty" of something vaguely looking like terrorist activity! My prediction, if some sort of face-saving plea bargaining cannot be arranged, is that his trial will not happen while GWB is still US president, or during this election year in Oz. The inevitable legal challenges will see to that! Right now I wouldn't blame David Hicks if survival over-rode principle. The thing is, we'll all know why, if he pleads guilty to anything to get out of there!:

Lawyer sees plea trap for Hicks
Penelope Debelle, Adelaide
January 23, 2007/the AGE

DAVID Hicks is at serious risk of pleading guilty to a crime he did not commit out of desperation to get out of Guantanamo Bay, his Adelaide lawyer said yesterday.

David McLeod said it would be a tragedy if Hicks, 31, returned to Australia wrongly convicted of terrorist crimes. Hicks allegedly trained with al-Qaeda and joined the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Mr McLeod said he feared the US handling of Hicks' case would exploit his depleted mental state by making him an offer he could not refuse.

"The tragedy about all this now is that here is a young bloke who is going nuts in Guantanamo, having been there for five years, he is obviously going to see as very attractive anything that can get him home quickly," he said. "I am starting to sniff that the fix is on that basis too; that they are going to offer him something that is irresistible that would still bring him back as a convicted terrorist."

Mr McLeod said it would be unconscionable for Hicks to agree to a crime he did not commit. But a plea bargain was possible if it meant agreeing to a control order or a low-level charge.

Mr McLeod said Hicks would almost certainly face reduced charges this time because the US Supreme Court decision last year had ruled out a repeat of the initial charge of "aiding the enemy". The "conspiracy" charge levelled against him last time was also ruled inapplicable under international law.

Consideration of a legitimate plea bargain was premature, but Mr McLeod said he would not rule it out. "If there was a reason to engage in a plea bargain we would explore it," he said. "If there was an offence of being in Afghanistan between 1999 and 2001, we would plead guilty to it if that meant getting us home."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/lawyer-sees-plea-trap-for-hicks/2007/01/22/1169330830788.html

I don't get this. Can the Australian PM actually request the time for the trial to take place? Until now the prime minister & the attorney-general have argued that this is purely a US matter. Does this mean that the Australian government could have had more influence over the process, much earlier, but chose not to? :

Last Update: Tuesday, January 23, 2007. 1:10pm (AEDT)

Hicks charges expected by 'middle of February'

Prime Minister John Howard says he is "reasonably optimistic" Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks will be charged within weeks.

In the past 24 hours, Mr Howard has formally asked United States authorities to lay charges against Mr Hicks by the middle of next month.

Mr Howard says he is unhappy it has taken so long.

"The Foreign Minister and I discussed the matter and the Attorney-General, we discussed the matter yesterday," he said.


"The decision was taken to formally convey to the Americans that he should be charged by the middle of February." .... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1832032.htm

Sometimes the cynical opportunism of some politicians makes me sick.
PM John Howard reads today's poll results.
David Hicks is suddenly an "issue"! Surprise!
Suddenly JH does have influence with the US authorities!
Suddenly he cares!
For 5 years (when Hicks wasn't an issue) he couldn't have cared less if David Hicks went insane in that place!
Despicable!:

Last Update: Tuesday, January 23, 2007. 4:21pm (AEDT)

PM accused of Hicks case electioneering

The Federal Opposition has accused Prime Minister John Howard of being driven by opinion polls over the fate of Australian terrorism suspect David Hicks.

Mr Howard says he is unhappy it has taken so long for the Guantanamo Bay detainee to be charged, and this week he formally asked the United States to take action against him by the middle of next month.

Labor leader Kevin Rudd says he is not impressed.

"Mr Howard gets polling advice which is bad for him on Mr Hicks and straight afterwards Mr Howard seems to make a statement which says that he's going to take action with President Bush on Mr Hicks," he said.

"Mr Howard unfortunately is a clever politician who responds to polls and he only seems to only respond to polls."


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1832219.htm

Hicks request 'motivated by bad poll'

A negative poll is the only reason Prime Minister John Howard has asked the US to charge terror suspect David Hicks within three weeks, says Labor.

Mr Howard today said he had asked the United States lay charges against Hicks by the middle of February, without saying what the government would do if the time frame wasn't adhered to. .. <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-request-motivated-by-bad-poll/2007/01/23/1169518704782.html