Bring David Hicks home (from Guantanamo) before Christmas!

Guantanamo a lawless prison: lawyer
Penelope Debelle, Adelaide, and Ian Munro
February 6, 2007/the AGE

GUANTANAMO Bay is a lawless prison run by the CIA and US interrogators using CIA techniques of subjugation and degradation, David Hicks' Adelaide lawyer said yesterday on his return from Cuba.

David McLeod, a conservative military lawyer and decorated army legal reservist, said he was "shirt-fronted" by the US military last week because he talked to the media about the conditions in which Hicks was held.

"I was subjected to a rather aggressive interrogation by one of the officials there for talking to the media in the way that I have," he said. "This is the standard approach, this is what happens when a lawless place like Guantanamo Bay is subject to scrutiny."

Mr McLeod would not reveal details of the interrogation but said Guantanamo Bay was a lawless place that sought to avoid public scrutiny.

US prosecutor Colonel Morris Davis said Hicks' defence lawyers would be better employed preparing their case rather than chasing publicity.

Seeking to counter defence claims that Hicks was being subjected to retrospective legislation, Colonel Davis said the charge of providing support for terrorism levelled at Hicks was created more than a decade ago.

Professor Norman Abrams, a specialist in terrorism law at the University of California in Los Angeles, said the law was originally enacted in 1994 and it had been used in a number of prosecutions since.

However, Hicks' military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, criticised the use of the charge, saying it was "not part of the law of war". He said the law was being applied retrospectively to Hicks, something Americans would not do to one of their own citizens.

He challenged Attorney-General Philip Ruddock's claim that the second charge of providing material support to terrorism was not based on retrospective legislation but on codified law.

Speaking on ABC radio, Mr Ruddock denied the law was retrospective.

"I've been assured that there were existing laws and this is a mere codification," he said.

Major Mori said: "What are they saying the law was? What pre-existing law is my question."

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/02/05/1170524026015.html?from=top5

Howard feels heat on Hicks
Sarah Smiles, Canberra
February 7, 2007/the AGE


Tough day back at the office: John Howard on his feet during the first question time of 2007 yesterday.
Photo: Andrew Taylor

THE prospect of more delays in the David Hicks case has put the Howard Government under pressure on Parliament's first sitting day of the year, with Liberal MPs openly pushing the Prime Minister to take a tougher stand against the US.



On a tough first day back after the summer break, the Prime Minister faced calls from several Government backbenchers to bring Hicks home. .... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/howard-feels-heat-on-hicks/2007/02/06/1170524094625.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

PM tells the party: I could free Hicks - but won'tPhillip Coorey and Cynthia Banham
February 7, 2007/Sydney Morning Herald[/size]


Chorus of discontent ... protesters gather outside Parliament House yesterday to demand the release of David Hicks from the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
Photo: Louie Douvis

JOHN HOWARD has told his party room he could secure the release of David Hicks any time but says that would be wrong because the terrorism suspect should face a trial first.

The admission yesterday prompted MPs to challenge him why he did not.

Bruce Baird, Petro Georgiou and Warren Entsch contended Mr Hicks had been in detention too long, would not receive a fair trial and should be brought home and placed under a control order.

"What do you expect us to do?" Mr Howard was quoted as saying.

Mr Entsch responded "bring him home like the Brits did", a reference to the British Government repatriating its Guantanamo Bay inmates because of concerns about the military commissions.

Mr Howard said that meant Mr Hicks would go free because he could not be charged under Australian law.

But he also indicated yesterday he would not let him languish indefinitely, saying he would set the US further timelines for the case to be dealt with.

He earlier gave the US until the middle of this month for Mr Hicks to be charged. At the weekend, two new charges were sworn against Mr Hicks but have not yet been approved or laid. ... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/02/06/1170524096341.html?from=top5

* The face of the young boy in Leunig's cartoon (above) belongs to David Hicks, aged seven. It's from a GetUp campaign to bring David home, currently running on Oz TV. The other face belongs to a badly out of touch politician, with dubious loyalties.

Major Dan Mori, is David Hicks' defence counsel, appointed by the US authorities. This is his response to the recently published draft charges.:

Try Hicks, or free him
February 7, 2007/the AGE

The retroactive laws to be invoked by the military commissions are fundamentally flawed and unfair, writes Major Michael Mori.

DAVID Hicks' situation can be drawn to a quick and fair close. If the US believes he violated US federal law, then Australia should demand that the US immediately try Hicks in a US federal court. Otherwise, he should be returned home and not subjected to a tribunal system that the US deems insufficiently fair to try its own citizens.

The retroactivity of the Military Commission Act (MCA) offence of "material support" is extremely important, especially in light of the position of Australian ministers that applying retroactive Australian laws to David Hicks is inappropriate. To permit the US to use its flawed military commissions system to apply retroactive laws to Hicks contravenes the ministers' stated position and is fundamentally unfair.

From media reports, it appears that Australian ministers and the US are claiming that the MCA offence of "material support" is the same as a US federal crime that predates the MCA. At the same time, they concede that material support is not a "war crime". This is a change in position for the US. As John Bellinger, legal adviser to the US Department of State, explained in a press conference in September 2006, "many of the people in Guantanamo had never set foot in the United States, had trained in al-Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan and were captured there. And while they were training in acts of terrorism, there may have been an Egyptian or a Pakistani who would come to train. They had not committed crimes that were in violation of our US criminal laws because those were not crimes that were on our books at the time in September 11, 2001."

What is most disturbing is that now, five years into his confinement at Guantanamo, Australian ministers and the US are saying that Hicks has violated US federal law. If this is correct, there was no reason for Hicks to remain at Guantanamo for five years without a trial in a US federal court. Either Hicks did not violate US law or there was an intentional decision to deprive Hicks of a US federal criminal trial where he would have had the same legal protections as a US citizen. Their admission that "material support" is not a war crime undercuts the rationale for using a military commission instead of the US federal court system. There are two statutes in the US criminal code with the title of "Providing material support": 18 USC 2339A, "providing material support to terrorists", and 8 USC 2339B, "providing material support to a designated terrorist organisation".

If the MCA is not retroactive, then the MCA should be a mirror image of the US federal statutes. But it is not. The differences between the MCA and 2339A/2339B are not superficial. The MCA offence removes elements, attempts to create a broader offence and increases punishment. ...

.......... The stated rationale for leaving Hicks at Guantanamo to face trial by military commission has been the need to prosecute him for serious "war crimes". This rationale no longer applies. Indeed, it never did. Hicks desperately wants to return to his family and he is willing to do whatever the Australian Government asks of him on his return.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/try-hicks-or-free-him/2007/02/06/1170524093395.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

Well he would say that, wouldn't he? :wink: This is the same Alexander (Alexander Downer, Oz minister for foreign affairs) who blithely declared David Hicks' mental & physical fitness, after something like a 5 minute visit by an Oz-based US embassy official!)

The mind boggles. Really it does ....
This person, Rear Admiral Harry Harris, claims that David Hicks (& others) are in solitary confinement because he poses a "security threat". Yet anyone closely following the goings on at Guantanamo Bay knows that Hicks & others were put into solitary confinement after suicides there, last year. And a security threat after 5 years in that place? Apart from that, this man declares that being in a cell by himself, for something like 22 hours a day, is not solitary confinement! This is the head of Guantanamo Bay detention centre! :

Last Update: Thursday, February 8, 2007. 5:27pm (AEDT)

Guantanamo chief labels Hicks a dangerous terrorist

The head of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre has described Australian detainee David Hicks as a dangerous terrorist.

Hicks, originally from Adelaide, is facing terrorism-related charges after five years' detention at the prison in Cuba.

Rear Admiral Harry Harris has told the ABC's PM program that Hicks is being kept in his cell for 22 hours a day because he, along with the other inmates, poses a real security threat.

He says Hicks has been a co-operative detainee but there are no innocent detainees.

"We are detaining enemy combatants here in Guantanamo," he said.

"That's the right of any nation at war to do that and it's an internationally recognised right.

"There's no expectation that they be tried or charged, with exception of those that are alleged to have committed war crimes."

He has previously said he believes there are no innocent men being held at Guantanamo.

Rear Admiral Harris has also rejected claims that Hicks is in a state of despair.

Hicks's Australian lawyer David McLeod said after a recent visit to the detainee that his client was a broken man.

But Rear Admiral Harris says that is not true.

"And I also don't believe that he's - when you say that he's in a cell by himself the implication is he's somehow isolated or in solitude, solitary confinement or something like that," he said.

"That's simply not the case - not in camps 1,2, 3 or 4 or 5 or 6."

An extended interview with Rear Admiral Harris will air on PM tonight.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1843445.htm

Sigh. In case you're wondering, yes, sometimes it does get tedious reporting some of the stupidity that gets published in the Oz press about the David Hicks case. But I have decided to "stay the course" ( :wink: )with this issue, because I believe it's important. To many Australians, Anyway. And I do feel sympathy for David Hicks' lawyers & others who try to put forward creditable arguments, only to regularly have folk like this person, Admiral Harry Harris, speak such unacceptable tripe on the issue. It's insulting, not just to David Hicks, his legal team, the many prominent Australians who have spoken out about the injustice of Hicks' situation, but the Australian people themselves. And it shows how seriously our coalition partner, the US, treats its Australian ally. As one caller to ABC radio talkback said this morning: can you imagine the outcry in the US if a US citizen citizen was held in an Australian prison without trial for 5 years? The thing is, it wouldn't happen. The US government wouldn't allow such a situation to occur. None of its citizens would be allowed to receive the treatment that has been metered out to David Hicks. It's not surprising that many Australians are now quite cynical (& getting more so) about our "alliance" with the US.

Sigh.

Anyway, this morning Greens leader, Bob Brown responded to those comments by Admiral Harry Harris yesterday. I listened to the PM interview. He seemed to be saying that anyone locked up at Guantanamo Bay automatically was a terrorist by the fact that they were there! And that it wasn't such a bad place to be! :

Last Update: Friday, February 9, 2007. 10:21am (AEDT)

Guantanamo chief 'judging Hicks guilty'

Greens leader Bob Brown says he is outraged that the head of the Guantanamo Bay detention centre has described David Hicks as a dangerous terrorist.

Rear Admiral Harry Harris says Hicks is a dangerous terrorist and is only allowed out of his cell for two hours a day because he is a security threat.

Rear Admiral Harris says claims that Hicks is depressed are not true.

Senator Brown says the statements cannot be believed.

"The reports coming from other detainees who've come out of Guantanamo Bay - and they're verifiable - show that there's been inhumane treatment," he said.

"We know anyway that the rights of Hicks have been removed, he's had no legal rights - he's been judged guilty by Admiral Harris himself."

Rear Admiral Harry Harris has told the ABC's PM program that Hicks poses a real security threat and there are no innocent detainees.

"We are detaining enemy combatants here in Guantanamo," he said.

"That's the right of any nation at war to do that and it's an internationally recognised right.

"There's no expectation that they be tried or charged, with exception of those that are alleged to have committed war crimes."

Hicks's lawyer, David McLeod, says the Rear Admiral's comments make it clear Hicks will not receive a fair trial in the United States.

"This suggestion that because detainees are there, that that is in itself evidence of terrorism, or their being a terrorist, simply puts the lie to any attempt to deal with them in a fair and open manner," he said.

"To suggest that a prisoner in the Australian criminal courts is guilty would in itself amount to a mistrial or an inability to proceed appropriately and fairly before a court." ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1843612.htm

I'm a little annoyed with the use of the child david's photo. What a little angle.

Smacks of spin.
Perhaps a photo of him in his training gear Ak 47 at the ready in the camp in afganistan would round things out.

dont get me wrong here the American and Austaralian government have and continue to abuse the legal system. Thats wrong regardless of weather hicks is guilty, has committed a crime or not.

Yeah, I understand what you're saying, dadpad. I find the ad. campaign using that photograph a bit twee, too. GetUp's rational for doing this is that they want to "humanise" David Hicks. To make those ordinary Australians who have been pretty indifferent to his plight so far, realize that he is a real person. Those ubitiqitous photographs of him earlier on in the piece, behind that weapon, which appeared in almost every single report, appeared to convince many people that he was completely evil & unworthy of any concern. I guess, right now GetUp's rational for using the David child image is that it's do or die in the campaign. And I guess it is that serious. He looks like being at Guantanamo Bay for at least another year before his trial actually happens. (If it ever does!) I think they are trying to save his life & what's left of his sanity by whatever means possible. I can't be too hard on them, really. This sort of approach is what might be necessary when his own government sees him as simply a political football & frankly couldn't give a stuff about his welfare. Who knows, it might work? I don't need convincing that he's being treated unfairly & either do you. But this might convince others who've bought the government's line on Hicks up until now? We'll see.

Amazing how a few bad poll results can galvanize the Oz government's resolve! Today's poll informed the government that 6 out of 10 Australians are dissatisfied with with how the David Hicks issue has been handled.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/labor-soars-with-mr-65/2007/02/11/1171128813763.html?page=fullpage

Since the last poll (in the Australian newspaper a short time ago & a few pages back in this thread) it's clear that the the injustice of David Hicks' situation has finally struck a cord with the Oz electorate.

Yesterday the PM expressed his extreme dissatisfaction with US delays in bringing Hicks to trial.

And now Alexander is finally making a bit of effort, after a pretty ordinary show of concern to date!

So David Hicks won't be facing the death penalty? Well, who expected that anyway? And he'll be able to serve out his sentence in Australia? Well that's new, but how come this is even being discussed before the trial happens? What if he isn't found "guilty"? ( :wink: ) Isn't the purpose of a trial to establish guilt or innocence?

But this is still a long way from having a firm date for the trial. And last we heard, it could be up to a year from now. After 5 years of inaction already, that's just not acceptable. David Hicks should be brought home now & dealt with under Australian law. If the US military can create new laws to try him, why on earth can't we?:

Last Update: Monday, February 12, 2007. 9:36am (AEDT)

Hicks won't face death penalty

Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer says he has received assurances from the Bush Administration that Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks will not face the death penalty and would serve any sentence imposed by a US military commission in Australia.

Mr Downer discussed Hicks' case with the new US Defence Secretary, Robert Gates, while attending an international security conference in Germany.

Mr Downer told Radio National Mr Gates said he understood Australian concerns about the time it is taking to bring Hicks to trial.

"He gave a series of undertakings - one of them was, to use his words, that the death penalty was 'off the table', there was no question of David Hicks being subjected to the death penalty," Mr Downer said.

"And secondly that David Hicks would be able to be represented by an Australian counsel as well as of course his American counsel.

"And thirdly he said that David Hicks would be able to serve his sentence in Australia itself." ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1845307.htm

[/IMG]

Sigh. Same old, same old ....
Instead of releasing a constant stream of information, none of which suggests that David Hicks fired a single shot, why are these people not getting on with his trial? As Major Mori said on ABC radio this morning, there's nothing really new here & it appears that the US military's case will be based on their perceptions of Hicks' intentions, rather than anything he actually did. The Australian government's mid-February dead-line for a definite trial date has passed. Some of us are getting heartily sick & tired of this. :

Meet 'Abu Muslim Austraili'
February 16, 2007 - 11:54AM/the AGE

The US military has released new details about David Hicks' alleged movements in Afghanistan before his capture in late 2001.

The allegations will be used to prosecute the accused Australian terrorist at his military commission trial, which could begin in June.

The evidence, contained in charge sheets released by the US Department of Defence, alleges Hicks travelled between Pakistan and Afghanistan before and after the September 11 terrorist attacks on New York and Washington DC.

Hicks has been charged with providing material support for terrorism.

The 31-year-old has also been charged with attempted murder in violation of the law of war. ... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/meet-abu-muslim-austraili/2007/02/16/1171405400777.html

Malcolm Fraser is a former conservative prime minister of Australia. He he is a member of the Liberal Party, the same party as our current prime minister, John Howard. Here he is simply saying what many Australians already think: the is no way that David Hicks will receive a fair trial & there is no way that the US & the Australian governments will accept anything but a guilty verdict.:

Last Update: Friday, February 16, 2007. 12:00pm (AEDT)

David Hicks has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. (file photo)

Govt working for Hicks guilty verdict: Fraser

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser says the United States and Australian governments are working to ensure Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks is found guilty.

Mr Fraser has addressed eminent Australians, academics and teachers at a human rights education conference at the University of Melbourne.

He says the Howard Government has done nothing to stop the delays and torturous conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

"After five years of quite inhumane and degrading treatment, a verdict of innocence would be extraordinarily embarrassing to both governments, perhaps enough to defeat a government as more and more Australians really come to understand the nature of government's betrayal of the rights of an Australian citizen," he said.

"On this analysis, the United States cannot and clearly will not allow a fair trial."

"As the bottom line, if the United States had wanted a fair trial, it would have used the normal court system or military court martials - we could all then have confidence in either course.

"The United States has in fact spent enormous energy to try and guarantee the kind of verdict it clearly wants." ... <cont>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200702/s1849401.htm

So, something like seven years before the trial happens?
This is an outrage:

Lawyer fears trial still two years away
February 16, 2007/the Australian

DAVID Hicks' lawyer fears a trial for the Australian terrorist suspect could still be two years away.

Adelaide lawyer David McLeod has made the prediction as Prime Minister John Howard faces growing pressure from his backbench over Hicks' detention.

A further technical hurdle to bring Hicks before a military commission has been cleared with US President George W Bush issuing an executive order setting the stage for trials to go ahead.

But Mr McLeod, whose client has already been held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba for five years, said it might be two years before Hicks faced trial because of likely challenges to the military commission process.

"David will get caught up in that process and we can't see a commission hearing starting within two years," he told ABC Radio yesterday. .... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21235676-601,00.html

Independent health check for Hicks refused
Mark Dodd
February 16, 2007/the Australian

THE US refused David Hicks a visit by an independent psychologist, saying the Australian was receiving exemplary healthcare from Guantanamo Bay medicos.

The Howard Government requested the independent assessment in December but was knocked back by US authorities last month.
Hicks's lawyers said his mental health was deteriorating after visiting him last month.

Rod Smith, a senior consular officer from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, told a Senate estimates hearing yesterday that Australia's consul-general in Washington, John McAnulty, had put the request to the US in a letter dated December 5 last year. But the request was rejected. .. <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21234246-601,00.html

Hicks to be home 'by end of year'
February 18, 2007 - 5:03PM/Sunday AGE

David Hicks could be back in Australia this year as the federal government attempts to defuse his detention as an election issue.

Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said US Defence Secretary Robert Gates had reconfirmed a deal to allow the Guantanamo Bay inmate to serve any prison sentence in Australia if convicted of terrorism-related charges.

"If the trial proceeds and proceeds quickly ... then it'll be possible to get Mr Hicks back to Australia by the end of the year, either to serve in a prison in Australia or of course just to be released, depending on the result of the trial," Mr Downer told the Nine Network.

But Labor leader Kevin Rudd said the Howard government was only moving on Hicks to offset growing disquiet over his plight.

And Hicks' father Terry is holding out little hope that he will be able to celebrate Christmas with his son this year.

"I don't believe the Americans would speed up the system just because of an Australian election," Mr Hicks said. .... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/hicks-to-be-home-by-end-of-year/2007/02/18/1171733597464.html