David Hicks and the Problem with Gitmo

On March 30 2007, David Hicks was convicted of "providing material support for terrorism", marking the first conviction at a U.S. war-crimes trial since World War II. Hicks has been he only detainee who has been formally charged under a new military tribunal system. Prosecutors say they plan to charge as many as 80 of the 385 men now held at Guantanamo on suspicion of links to al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

There are a few problems with this, in my opinion:

1 - David Hicks was sent to Guantanamo in 2002... five years ago. FIVE YEARS AGO, with no charges filed against him.

2 - In 2004, Hicks was charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy - to which he pleaded not guilty - the charges were subsequently dropped after a US Supreme Court ruled that the system of military tribunals was unlawful. Yet he stayed locked up in Gitmo.

3 - Originally assigned three lawyers, two of his three attorneys were removed from representing him. Hicks' civilian attorney was removed because he refused to sign a statement agreeing to abide by military rules that had not yet been drafted and another attorney was removed because she supposedly did not have the correct credentials for the commission. That left Hicks with only one attorney, his military attorney, Dan Mori. Although Mori has been doing an exemplary job for Hicks, there was a little cloud hanging over Mori: the prosecuting attorney has suggested that Mori should be brought up on charges of misconduct for his zealous defense of Hicks.

4 - He finally pleaded guilty to "providing material support for terrorism", a charge that wasn't a crime when he was arrested. Of course, ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, but that doesn't matter anymore, does it?

5 - As part of his plea bargain - yes, plea bargain - he'll be sent to Australia to serve nine months of the seven years he was sentenced to. The deal included a statement by Mr. Hicks that he “has never been illegally treated” while a captive, despite claims of beatings he had made in the past. It also included a promise not to pursue suits over the treatment he received while in detention and “not to communicate in any way with the media” for a year.

6 - Legal analysts saw the nine-month term as suspiciously accommodating of Australia's election season as the deal keeps Hicks out of the public arena until just after the vote expected by December.

I thought we didn't bargain with terrorists, that is of course unless we have nothing on the guy, torture him for five years, charge him with a crime that didn't exist when he was arrested, take away legal counsel and force him not to talk to the media for a year and refute his testimony of being tortured.

Don't misunderstand me. Following the 9/11 attacks, Hicks telephoned his father from Kandahar in Afghanistan, to tell him he was going to help the Taliban defend Kabul from the Northern Alliance. He was captured on 9 December 2001 near Kunduz in Afghanistan by the Northern Alliance.

The debate is not whether Hicks is innocent or guilty, or a patsy, or a sick man with Islamic delusions of grandeur. The question is whether or not he deserved a fair and speedy trial as dictated by the 6th Amendment of the Constitution. And if he did not, how long before we are next?

God, I hate these people.

Australian reporter Ray Martin's video report of February 18th: The Ghost of David Hicks