Guantanamo conviction- a David Hicks overturn precedent?

[pakistani_dalek]

If being a Taliban shooting at enemies is not a crime, then why was David Hicks locked in a South Australian prison? Whether he pled guilty or not, the only thing that David could be tried on has now been found by a Guantanamo Military Tribunal to not be a criminal act.

Osama bin Laden's former driver Salim Hamdan was cleared overnight of two counts of conspiring with al Qaeda to attack civilians, destroy property, commit murder in violation of the laws of war. No Twin Towers, no USS Cole. Without admissions extracted under torture in Afghanistan, it appears the prosecutors didn't have a leg to stand on

He was convicted of the failsafe charge (imagine if he walked away found guilty of nothing?) the same charge that Hicks plead guilty to, that of providing material support for terrorism. Basically, by acting as Bin Laden's chauffeur, he helped Osama do what Osama did. That, it seems, is about all they could pin on him.

Deputy Chief Defence Council Michael Berrigan says that "The travesty of this verdict now is that had the case gone to trial in 2004 he would have been acquitted of all the charges," There is, though, a greater travesty in the ramifications of this verdict.

It appears to me that the acts that Hamdan has been forund to be not guilty by a jury are the same as the ones that Hicks pled guilty to. Have a look at the allegations of the "material support" laid against Hicks, as reported in the Australian on March 2, 2007:

extract:

"the first specifiation reads Hicks did "intentionally provide material support or resources to an international terrorist organisation engaged in hostilities against the United States, namely al-Qa'ida, which the accused knew to be such an organisation that engaged, or engages, in terrorism, and, that the conduct of the accused took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict, namely al-Qa'ida, or its associated forces against the US or its coalition partners".

The second specification reads Hicks did "provide material support or resources to be used in preparation for, or in carrying out, an act of terrorism, that the accused knew or intended that the material support or resources were to be used for those purposes, that the conduct of the accused took place in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict, namely al-Qa'ida or its associated forces against the US or its coalition partners."



Hamdan was convicted on only five of the eight counts in the "material support" charge. The BBC correspondent on ABC radio news overnight says that the Tribunal has ruled that for a member of the Taliban to shoot at an enemy soldier is not a war crime.

Here's where it can get interesting for Hicks. Picked up in Afghanistan in 2001 by the Northern Alliance, what' s the most that he could possibly have done? Shot at an enemy soldier. If that's not a crime, then David has been jailed both in Guantanamo and South Australia for something that isn't regarded as criminal. Given that "material support" is a crime introduced retrospectively by the U.S., should Hicks' innocence be as retrospective as the charge?

Having been found guilty by a jury, Hamdan faces one round of appeals at Guantanamo before he can take his case to the Federal Court. If I was South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson, I would be following what happens at that point very closely. Given the mood of the US judiciary chances must be pretty good that the convictions will be overturned. At this point it must be likely that David can ask for, and receive, an overturning of his conviction.

American Civil Liberties Union National Security Project staff attorney Ben Wizner, who observed the most recent trial:, says that "In the strange world of Guantánamo justice, even if Hamdan had been acquitted on all charges, he would have been detained indefinitely. Nowhere else in the U.S. justice system can someone be held for life regardless of whether he is convicted or acquitted of a crime. Today's outcome represents nothing more than an illusion of justice."


http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/2459

It would be great if one day this man could clear his name. He has had little to say since his release..but there would have to be a whole freaking novel locked away in that head..if he can remember it.

This is about as in depth as he has gotten to date.."He said: "Human rights – a privilege. Not guaranteed."

The first interveiw is going to be good.

[JW Frogen]

Guantanamo is a US own goal.

Still David Hicks fought for a militant group that was not recognized by the UN, that systematically violated the Geneva Convention, that oppressed all women’s rights, indeed most human rights, a group that wanted to bring us all back to the middle ages.

David Hicks may not have been Bin Laden, but he was a criminal, a man who gave his life to destroy Western, democratic pluralism, women's rights, human rights, secular rights.

Had David Hicks won his war, many of his defenders would no longer exist.

[pakistani_dalek]

Guantanamo is a US own goal.

Still David Hicks fought for a militant group that was not recognized by the UN, that systematically violated the Geneva Convention, that oppressed all women’s rights, indeed most human rights, a group that wanted to bring us all back to the middle ages.

David Hicks may not have been Bin Laden, but he was a criminal, a man who gave his life to destroy Western, democratic pluralism, women's rights, human rights, secular rights.

Had David Hicks won his war, many of his defenders would no longer exist.

Code: Select all

David Hicks may not have been Bin Laden, but he was a criminal, a man who gave his life to destroy Western, democratic pluralism, women's rights, human rights, secular rights.

I dont really buy that... Davids' war frogen? He was but one silly misguided youth.

The article and many others like it points to the technical aspects of US law that say technically that isnt so.
David Hicks never killed one man..you cant throw a man away for life and torture him to the point of insanity for thinking you can "guess' his intent.




The Howard Government should have intervened and spoke up for Hicks,,ground swell of public support for David and the looming election was the only reason this old bastard acted in the end.


Just another reason John Howard was dumped so comprehensively.

As David said : "Human rights – a privilege. Not guaranteed."

[freediver]

The case is not a meaningful precedent. He was acquitted on lack of evidence. That's not something new.

He was but one silly misguided youth.

Ignorance is not a defence.

[pakistani_dalek]

The case is not a meaningful precedent. He was acquitted on lack of evidence. That's not something new.

He was but one silly misguided youth.

Ignorance is not a defence.

No its not..but these so called professional interrogaters cant tell the difference between a hardened terrorist..and someone who is clearly playing at terrorist.?"

This would be apparent in all sorts of ways during the course of interrogation.

Daivd Hicks for all intents and purposes, was not what the US Miliatary made him out to be.It is why in the end they had to let him go.

[freediver]

I don't recall them making him out to be something he isn't.

[pakistani_dalek]

I don't recall them making him out to be something he isn't.

good grief FD..your in one of your contrary moods again.

Ill say no more.

[Aussie]

Dick Smith likes the dude..............

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/493 ... port-hicks

It has to be said that Dick was the same dick who was going to tow an ice-berg into Sydney Harbour.

Nice bloke, lovely bloke, but a looney, a commercially successful bloke, but, still, a looney.

Hicks was shafted by whatever system, but I do believe he was not playing tiddly winks over there.

Problem is International Law has not evolved quickly enough to deal with these things.

[pakistani_dalek]

Entrepreneur Dick Smith provided $50,000 to assist David Hicks' family and help fund the legal battle to bring the terrorism supporter home.

But Mr Smith says "not a cent" went directly to Hicks and some cash had been returned after Hicks was brought back to Australia.

Details of Mr Smith's financial assistance and other support for Hicks have been outlined in an interview with Readers Digest magazine.

"I sent money to a trust account to David's solicitor David McLeod in Adelaide," Mr Smith told the magazine.

"I think it must have got up to about $50,000.

"It was to support family members to visit David and for other purposes.

"The money also funded Geoffrey Robertson, the top international human rights lawyer, to travel to Washington.

"None of it went to David Hicks. Not a cent..

"When David Hicks finally came back to Australia, a cheque arrived from David McLeod for the money that hadn't been used. I thought that was incredibly ethical."



Aussie, Dick Smith ..he is a good bloke. I think Ill now change to Dickhead matches and Dick Smith vegemite as well.