Hicks 'silenced' before Australian election

DAVID HICKS feared he would be shot if he did not co-operate with US interrogators, the Australian prisoner says in an affidavit for an English court case.

And his Australian lawyer says he was tortured during his time at Guantanamo Bay, contradicting Hicks's plea bargain statement, in which he said he had not been mistreated by the US.

Hicks, who has spent five years in the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, after he was captured in Afghanistan in late 2001, last week pleaded guilty to a charge of giving material support to terrorists.

In the plea bargain document, Hicks said: "I have never been illegally treated by any person or persons while in the custody of the United States."

But the ABC's Four Corners last night reported that Hicks had recently signed an affidavit for an English court setting out ill treatment.

"I realised that if I did not cooperate with US interrogators, I might be shot," the ABC quoted Hicks as saying.

In the affidavit Hicks also claims that he was slapped, kicked, punched and spat on in Afghanistan, the ABC reported.

He could hear other detainees screaming in pain, saw the marks of their beatings and had a shotgun trained on him during interrogation.

More

Short sentence for David Hicks seen as 'lenient,' and his gag order dubbed a 'political fix.'
By Arthur Bright | csmonitor.com

The plea agreement that saw the release of "Aussie Taliban" David Hicks from detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has prompted harsh criticism - in the US as being too lenient, and in Australia as being a political tool in the upcoming elections.

Mr. Hicks's plea agreement includes a nine-month prison sentence. Additionally, Hicks agreed not to allege that he was subjected to illegal treatment while in US custody, and not to speak with the media for one year. The Washington Post reports that the plea was crafted without the knowledge of prosecutors in his trial at the US military facility. Hicks had been facing two counts of providing material support for terrorism. His was the first case to be heard by special war crimes tribunals set up under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

More
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0402/p99s01-duts.html

DAVID Hicks will return to Australia under circumstances best described as unsettling and surprising.

The short sentence and the undemocratic gag order have added further layers of contradiction to a story that is as weird as it is unpredictable.

There are many straightforward questions that need to be answered, starting with who ordered the political fix, why such a short sentence, and why stop a guilty man telling a story of his own wrongdoing?

It has been widely observed that Hicks' incarceration has been neutered as a mainstream political issue in this year's federal election.

But the deeper issue just might be whether a political fix was orchestrated by the Howard Government.

The Government has denied speaking to the Bush Administration about the sentence or the gag, but openly admits it pressured Washington to charge and prosecute Hicks.

The Hicks deal was arrogant in its execution. The best guess, based on the available evidence, is that the core political culprit for the nuts and bolts of the brief sentence and the clumsy gag lies much closer to Washington than to Canberra.

It has been widely reported in the US that the military commission's most senior official was well known to Vice-President Dick Cheney, having worked for Cheney when he was defence secretary.

Cheney was in Australia in February and the official, Susan J. Crawford, is a well-known Republican who also happens to the be the convening authority for the military commissions.

It's important not to make accusations without the evidence. But let's ask some more questions.

Did Cheney, or somebody under his instructions, speak to Crawford? And if so, what was said to her, given that Hicks' counsel went straight to Crawford to cut a deal?

More
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21491717-5000117,00.html

As Human Rights Watch's DC-based US program advocacy director, I've spent nearly two years researching and monitoring the military commissions that were set up by the Bush administration to try the "worst of the worst" detainees held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. That is how and why--when much of the rest of America was sensibly on spring break--I ended up in Gitmo monitoring the first military commission proceedings authorized by Congress.

While some might think I got the short straw in the office pool, I actually volunteered to head south, thinking that it was time for me to actually see in action the military commission system I have been commenting on (here's a Q&A explaining the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and their recent history.

Last Monday night, observers were called into the courtroom at 8 PM to hear as Hicks's decision to plead guilty was revealed. I unpacked my bags, bought some laundry detergent, and waited out several days of speculation. On Friday, the guilty plea was formally entered, the panel members convened, the plea deal revealed, the sentence imposed.

The government once proposed military commissions as the best way to prosecute the masterminds of 9/11, and the prosecutor in Australian David Hicks's case made a valiant attempt at maintaining that fiction. He stood up, pointed at Mr. Hicks, and in a sentencing argument worthy of a fire and brimstone preacher called him an "enemy who wanted to kill Americans," "a threat", and an "extremist" who sought to destroy liberty and freedom. But then the plea deal was revealed: a mere nine months incarceration and a promise to transfer him home to Australia within two months time, in exchange for a series of conditions that mostly revealed the government's interest as protecting against the disclosure of his abuse while in detention.

The agreement includes a statement from Hicks that he has not been subjected to "illegal" treatment at any time while he was in US custody - a statement that the Department of Defense has broadcast in its press release on the case. But this is a concession that means little for a government that interpreted water boarding (mock drowning) as compliant with US and international law at the time of Mr. Hicks' arrest. And in a statement filed in a UK court, Mr. Hicks has previously alleged being beaten repeatedly, sodomized, and forced into painful stress positions while in US custody.

Included in the deal is also a one-year gag rule that prohibits Hick from discussing any element of his treatment or capture - a provision that serves the purpose of hiding the very abusive conduct the United States denies. And Hicks is barred from suing anyone in the US government regarding his detention or treatment, and cannot profit from the eventual sale of his story, but must instead turn over any proceeds to the Australian government.

More
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jennifer-daskal/spring-break-in-guantanam_b_44805.html