A Belated Commentary on David Hicks

For some reason, I have inexcusably neglected to comment on one of the most important events going on today - the "trial", "confession", and "conviction" of Australian David Hicks. Hicks was captured by a "Northern Alliance warlord" on (we think) December 9, 2001, near Kunduz, Afghanistan, and turned over to US Special Forces (for $1000) on December 17, 2001. He was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, prisoner 002, on January 11, 2002. For 5 years, Hicks was incarcerated in Guantanamo Bay. There were many allegations of "alternative interrogation techniques" - torture - although no US officials will either confirm or deny the statement. His defense attorney, Major Michael Mori, is quoted as saying: Basically, he's not going to get a fair trial. Unfortunately this new system is very close to what the old illegal system was like, the fundamental protections that are usually part of a civil criminal trial or a US court martial have been removed. Mori has gotten himself into considerable trouble by making these statements, as he has been threatened with court martial by the US Military: "...Mori, the defence lawyer for David Hicks, could be removed from the case after threats from the chief US prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, to charge him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice." This is not the only occurrence of this. Hick's family lawyer, Stephen Kenny, was also removed from the case in 2005. Also, Mori is not the only military lawyer in a conflict of conscience. Colonel Stuart Couch has gone even further than Mori, refusing to prosecute enemy combatants. This may yet become a major problem for the US Military. On March 26, 2007, Hicks plead guilty to "material support for terrorism" and received a 9 month sentence, subject to various conditions - not a very long sentence for a person that Rumsfeld called a "committed terrorist" and Cheney called "the worst of a very bad lot. They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans". A full transcript of the "confession" is available here. Hick's "trial" began and ended very quickly, with a plea agreement being negotiated between Hick's lawyers and Susan J. Crawford, the top military commission official. A great quote: As the deal developed in recent weeks, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the lead prosecutor for military commissions, and his team on the Hicks case were not in the loop. Davis said he learned about the plea agreement Monday morning when the plea papers were presented to him, and he said the prosecution team was unaware that discussions had been taking place. "We got it before lunchtime, before the first session," Davis said at a news conference Friday night. In an interview later, he said the approved sentence of nine months shocked him. "I wasn't considering anything that didn't have two digits," he said, referring to a sentence of at least 10 years. Interestingly, one of the conditions is that Hicks is not allowed to speak about the alleged abuses he suffered while at Guantanamo Bay. One of the best excerpts: "I agree that I will not communicate with the media in any way regarding the illegal conduct alleged in the charge and the specifications or about the circumstances surrounding my capture and detention as an unlawful enemy combatant for a period of one (1) year. I agree that this includes any direct or indirect communication made by me, my family members, my assigns, or any other third party made on my behalf." Another interesting aspect of this case is the direct involvement of VP Dick Cheney. There is significant conjecture that Cheney intervened in this case and in the negotiation of the plea agreement. John Howard, Australia's Prime Minister, was very interested in getting Hicks freed, as Hicks has significant popular support at home (note that many of the articles I link in this post were written in Australia), and Howard is hurting in his attempt for re-election this year. Cheney met with Howard on February 24, and David Hicks was at the top of the discussion agenda. After the verdict, trial observer Lex Lasry said: “What an amazing coincidence that, with an election in Australia by the end of the year, he gets nine months and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it.” This certainly seems like politics to me. Cheney called the initial group of Guantanamo detainees, of which Hicks was a member, "the worst of a very bad lot. They are very dangerous. They are devoted to killing millions of Americans". Now, it seems that ensuring the re-election of Howard changes the "worst of a very bad lot" into a person that requires only a 9 month sentence, which will be served in Australia, not Guantanamo. The sentence was not commuted to time served, presumably because the government cannot allow the incarceration in Guantanamo to resemble actual punishment, since detainees can be held indefinitely. It is instead something else - I'm not sure what. So after all of this, it seems that we have: 1. A conflict between the perceived "danger" that Hicks represents and the desire to get a friendly Australian PM re-elected - even with the Republican over-emphasis on National Security, politics wins. 2. A plea bargain, filled with exceptions and conditions, negotiated between military officials and defense attorneys - not involving the prosecutors, but instead a personal associate of the VP. 3. A desire to silence any discussion by the defendant of his treatment while in Guantanamo Bay - Covering up torture perhaps? Does this seem strange to anyone else? I certainly hope so...