Plea or Else

Before his mock trial could even really get under way David Hicks has apparently entered a plea of guilty to providing material support for terrorism.

I don't know if this is one of those laws that didn't exist at the time Hicks was meant to have broken them but reports have indicated that it relates to his having trained with al Quaeda and having met Osama bin Laden. How this actually assists terrorism is not clear, though granted it isn't good. Essentially though he seems to have admitted to having met people who at the time were not on the payroll of the CIA.

Meeting bin Laden is obviously significantly worse than meeting Brian Burke which only leaves a taint but isn't as yet a crime in itself. However, Donald Rumsfeld met Saddam Hussein, and then Alexander Downer helped channel hundreds of millions of dollars to him. To me that sounds more like material support, and yet charges are yet to be laid. No doubt only a matter of time.

Hicks' plea has been reported as a plea bargain but as they still seem to be talking about how long his sentence will be, and where it might be served, they seemed to have missed out significant parts of the bargain.

The Howard government, no doubt relieved at not having to go through with the whole mock trial, as it seems at this point no one is buying it anymore, has called game over and declared themselves the winners. Hicks has pled guilty, case closed, can we please talk about something else in the run up to the election.

Interestingly our behated Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has come out and said Hicks probably won't appeal his sentence. How does Ruddock come to this conclusion? Apparently an appeal would jeopardise any transfer deal, a transfer meaning Hicks serving his sentence in Adelaide near his family.

So an appeal would mean staying at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely instead of being moved to a prison in Adelaide, presumably where laws and human rights are still upheld (one can only hope). There is also a date, though yet to be determined, where it is agreed you would be let out (though possibly let out but put under a control order). Compared to eternity in Guantanamo irresistible, and not something easily given up.

The Australian and American governments in their desperation for a political fix are openly threatening that should Hicks decide that maybe he didn't get a fair trial what with the being held for years without charge, and the torture, and isolation, and so forth, he will be left to the tender mercies of those who run Guantanamo apparently beyond the reach of any law, essentially forever.

I don't want to quibble but this doesn't strike me as a fair trial. You can either plead guilty, or go before a kangaroo court and spend the rest of your life being tortured. Would you like some thinking music? Perhaps loud and played 24 hours a day until you say `Guilty'. Who wouldn't take this deal? Contrary to the governments' pr spin this just adds another chapter to the miscarriage of justice.

Hicks certainly did something wrong, but nothing that could warrant his treatment at the hands of the american government or his abandonment by the Australian government. He can never get a fair trial now. The only hope is that those who have held him, clearly also guilty, but of much greater crimes, are one day made accountable and given the fair trial they have denied Hicks. This is not a hope to pin anything to though.