Five years of Guantanamo: Justice delayed is justice denied

[Michaelangelica]

Five years of Guantanamo: Justice delayed is justice denied.

Happy anniversary to all those in Guantanamo. :Waldo:

 

Amnesty International

 

Human rights and security issues:-

Amnesty International Australia - Human Rights and Security in Australia

 

:angel:

[Racoon]

And 5 more if necessary.

 

:Waldo:

[Michaelangelica]

Mori's 'integrity' attacked

 

But in a statement released today, Major Mori said the prosecution must be worried about its case against Hicks, who has now been held at the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay for five years.

 

"It is disappointing to hear Colonel Davis make derogatory comments attacking my integrity," Major Mori said.

 

"When a prosecutor's case is weak, he or she often resorts to attacking the defence lawyer."

 

Today marks the fifth anniversary of Hicks' detention in Guantanamo Bay after being captured in Afghanistan, allegedly training with al-Qaeda, in January.

.

.

the federal government had demanded that the US authorities deal with him as soon as possible.

January 11, 2007 - 3:07PM

Hicks' lawyer hits back at prosecutor - National - theage.com.au

Major Mori gives Australians faith in the American system.

 

More injustice

Time served may be ignored

 

Major Mori also slammed claims made by Colonel Davis that the five years Hicks has served in detention should be ignored in any possible sentencing.

 

He said that was at odds with the Australian government's position.

 

"I am sure it was disappointing and shocking to Australian ministers to hear Colonel Davis say that he hoped David's five years at Guantanamo would not be taken into account if he is sentenced," he said.

 

David Hicks's father, Terry Hicks, also slammed the suggestion, describing it as "absolutely disgusting

"

[Michaelangelica]

Australia Wants Health Report on Guantanamo Detainee (Update2)

 

By Gemma Daley

 

Jan. 31 (Bloomberg) -- Australian Attorney-General Philip Ruddock asked for an ``urgent'' report from the U.S. on the state of health of David Hicks, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for almost six years without trial.

 

``I've asked for an assessment to be carried out and that be dealt with as a matter of urgency,'' Ruddock told Australian Broadcasting Corp. radio today. ``He is certainly in a single cell and that's for the purpose of ensuring that he is detained in a way that is humane.''

 

Hicks, 31, has been in held in the U.S. military prison in Cuba since he was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and accused of training with al-Qaeda.

 

 

 

Lawyer David McLeod visited Hicks yesterday and said he was chained to the floor for 22 hours a day and hadn't seen sunlight for months.

 

``His visage was an extremely sorrowful one,'' McLeod told the ABC. ``He continues to be locked up for 22 hours per day.''

Bloomberg.com: Australia & New Zealand

KELVIN THOMSON: I'm concerned about the fact that the United States Secretary of Defence has approved a range of interrogation techniques for the US army field manuals for use at Guantanamo Bay and that when I asked this question the Attorney-General's Department, it turned out that we have not asked that these techniques not be used on David Hicks.

 

PETA DONALD: What sort of techniques are you talking about?

 

KELVIN THOMSON: The initial list, prior to January 2003 included hooding, stripping prisoners naked, interrogation for up to 20 hours, the use of detainees' individual phobias such as fear of dogs to induce stress. There was a second list of interrogation techniques approved after January 2003 which involved things like removal of comfort items like toilet paper, exposure to extreme temperatures, reversing sleep cycles from night to day, and isolation.

 

 

TONY EASTLEY: But he's been held for many, many years now and I'm just wondering if you've not asked what interrogation techniques may have been used against him?

 

ALEXANDER DOWNER: Well we've asked in relation to David Hicks and when there have been allegations that he has been tortured we've had those allegations investigated. In fact, on two occasions they've been investigated by the Americans and the Americans have told us that it's not correct that he has been tortured.

AM - Alexander Downer comments on Hicks' detainment conditions

Twenty two to twenty four hours a day in a dark cell is not touture?

Look up the CIA research on the most effective torture -sensory deprivation

Evidence against Hicks was still being reviewed.

 

"The prosecution is currently still reviewing the evidence and the new rules of military commission, and when they are ready they will bring charges as appropriate," Major Beth Kubala, a spokeswoman for the Office of Military Commissions, told AAP.

 

Australian Prime Minister John Howard has set a deadline of mid-February for the US government to charge Hicks.

 

Hicks, 31, has been in US custody since his capture near Baghlan, Afghanistan, in December 2001.

 

The Adelaide man has been held at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, for more than five years.

Evidence against Hicks under review: US - Breaking News - World - Breaking News

[Michaelangelica]

Hicks can't get fair trial

: Fraser

 

It seems barely a day goes by now without the Government taking a hit from within its own ranks on the case of David Hicks. This morning it was the former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser airing his views. He said it was now impossible for Mr Hicks to have a fair trial.

Mr Fraser says it would be too embarrassing for both the United States and Australia for David Hicks to be declared innocent, so both countries were doing all they could to ensure a guilty verdict.

Mr Fraser's criticism comes as the Pentagon today publicly released more details of the new case against Mr Hicks.

MARK COLVIN: It seems barely a day goes by now without the Government taking a hit from within its own ranks on the case of David Hicks.

 

This morning it was the former Liberal prime minister Malcolm Fraser airing his views. He said it was now impossible for Mr Hicks to have a fair trial.

 

Mr Fraser says it would be too embarrassing for both the United States and Australia for David Hicks to be declared innocent, so both countries were doing all they could to ensure a guilty verdict.

 

Mr Fraser's criticism comes as the Pentagon today publicly released more details of the new case against Mr Hicks.

 

From Canberra Gillian Bradford reports.

 

GILLIAN BRADFORD: John Howard would almost be used to the daily parade of people speaking out against the detention of David Hicks, including senior figures from his own side of politics.

 

MALCOLM FRASER: From the President to the Ambassador, Americans have said that Hicks is guilty. They're saying, make sure he's convicted.

 

GILLIAN BRADFORD: Former Liberal prime minister, Malcolm Fraser, has voiced his concerns before and today at a human rights conference he again detailed why he thinks it's so wrong to keep holding David Hicks.

 

MALCOLM FRASER: After five years of inhumane and degrading treatment, the verdict of innocence would be extraordinarily embarrassing to both governments. Perhaps enough to defeat a government, as more and more Australian really come to understand the nature of the Government's betrayal of the rights of an Australian citizen.

PM - Hicks can't get fair trial: Fraser

[Michaelangelica]

Any other people who would like to vote for justice; please feel free

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/AussieToAussie

 

Howard is known as "bonzi" ie a little bush

Dear friends,

 

That's what Australia wants, and last week John Howard publicly admitted he has the power to do it. But year after year he refuses. He'd rather see David Hicks tried under a sham system of justice, destined to be challenged in US courts for years to come.

 

We've tried everything, but sometimes the only way to get results is to speak to politicians in the language they care about. Our Prime Minister didn't care about David Hicks' basic legal rights until the opinion polls told him he should.

 

So today we're reaching out to the one group John Howard can't disregard - and asking you to write to them personally. Use our newest technology to send your own message to a resident of John Howard's electorate of Bennelong, in Sydney's North, asking them to join the call for justice.

 

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/AussieToAussie

 

We'll compile every personal message and hand-deliver an individual letter to every home in Bennelong. We'll also give every resident there a Bring David Hicks Home postcard to fill in and send straight to the Prime Minister's office.

 

Since the Prime Minister is determined to play politics, we know our democracy is the best and only way to hold him accountable. And when he starts receiving thousands of postcards urging him to bring David Hicks home, he'll know they're from voters in his own marginal seat.

 

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/AussieToAussie

 

With your actions and support, we've put up billboards, organised candle-lit vigils and commissioned independent polls revealing the vast majority of Australians don't believe David Hicks can receive a fair trial in Guantanamo Bay, and must now be brought home.

 

We've worked alongside a chorus of human rights advocates, law councils and every State and Territory Attorney-General in Australia to make our arguments heard. Yet when GetUp staff went to Canberra last week we met with politicians from all parties still deeply frustrated over the Prime Minister's refusal to act.

 

The only thing left is to reach out to the one group of people John Howard can't disregard: the people whose votes will directly determine the future of his political career. Join voices now - Australian to Australian - home to home, and help deliver a message the Prime Minister must finally face.

 

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/AussieToAussie

 

 

Thanks for taking action,

 

The GetUp team

 

PS: Last week GetUp launched a national television advertising campaign to Bring David Hicks Home. The ad will play over the next few weeks and has already received national media attention. You can watch it now on GetUp's website.

[Boerseun]

I'm no fan of the Guantanamo Bay issue, which in my opinion is simply a sham to move suspects off US soil in order to deny them due process.

 

But, from another angle, what if Hicks is actually guilty? What was he doing with Al Qaida in the first place?

 

This whole effort of mobilising popular opinion to the "Bring Hicks Home" campaign might be losing sight of that possibility. And on who's face will the egg land when he does, in fact, turn out to be guilty?

 

In my opinion, everybody in Guantanamo must be relocated to proper prisons, and charged with whatever they're suspected of so that the Law can take its course.

 

If you torture someone, they'll confess to absolutely anything. Which is why confessions under torture is useless as evidence in trials, and are only used by tinpot dictatorships who does it in order to generate scapegoats for any issue imaginable. Well, that used to be the case, until Bush the Lesser decided to steer the US, that mighty vehicle of Human Rights, Freedoms and Respect away from the narrow path delineating the Moral High Ground by implementing the absolutely disgusting and morally indefensible concept of Guantanamo Bay.

 

I'm not agreeing or defending Guantanamo in the least, as should be evident in this post. What I am saying, though, is that there might just be a real reason for Hicks still being there, and politicising the issue might make for cheap politics and not much else.

[Fatstep]

I believe they just moved them there to inact the writ of habeas corpus.

If in another country the laws of the U.S. should apply is it is land onwed by the U.S.

 

Also, the people they took from their homes and sent to guantanamo because their name was arabic is stupid, so is eminent domain without reasonable cause.

[CraigD]

But, from another angle, what if Hicks is actually guilty? What was he doing with Al Qaida in the first place?

…

I'm not agreeing or defending Guantanamo in the least, as should be evident in this post. What I am saying, though, is that there might just be a real reason for Hicks still being there, and politicising the issue might make for cheap politics and not much else.

Though we’ve all heard it (and most of us said it) before, it bears repeating:

 

The issue is not whether the internees of Guantanamo are good people or bad, guilty or innocent of anything of which they may or many not be suspected, or more or less likely to pose dangers to the People of the US and the world as a result of their internment – it is whether they are or are not receiving the due process of law guaranteed by the US Constitution. The Fifth Amendment has not been amended to read:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation unless the President of the United States says so

- despite recent (1/17/07) statement by United States Attorney General Alberto Gonzales

The Constitution doesn't say every individual in the United States or every citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas, …

Suspension of due process rights in the US is not unprecedented – Lincoln did it, as did Grant. I strongly suspect that history will look less kindly on Bush than it has on these 2 Civil War-era presidents.

[Fatstep]

It does mention some rights may be refused in times of war.

[CraigD]

It does mention some rights may be refused in times of war.

The part of the Constitution to which I believe your referring, from the Fifth Ammendment (bolded)

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

is considered by most students of the Constitution to refer to persons in the active military, not to civilians.

[Fatstep]

No, Executive Priviliege.

 

A president or other Executive branch official that BASICALLY says; The president does not have to disclose information to Congress if National Security is at risk.

 

I kind of see how it's tied in with Guantanamo, Bush cited this when questioned about Guantanamo in mid-2006. It's a legal murky topic that doesn't really go into what he must say and what he must not.

[CraigD]

No, Executive Priviliege.

Unlike the enumerated powers of the Executive, and other specifically granted powers, the Consitution doesn’t specifically mention the concept of “Executive privilege”.

It's a legal murky topic that doesn't really go into what he must say and what he must not.

From what little I, as a non-specialists, have read, much of the basis of interpreting what actions are appropriate Executive privileges has to do with analysis and interpretation of what the original authors and signers of the constitution believed they should be, and what previous executives have successfully claimed them to be.

 

Murky, indeed.

[Fatstep]

I'm pretty sure Bush cited it for this reason; They are supposed terrorists or people who are involved in terroristic activities, if he were to give them due process there is no 'true' evidence for most of them which would lead to them being released, and possibly going on and committing an actual terrorist act. So, it is the best for national security to use executive privilege to deny their rights until war is over.

I suppose their philosophy could be;

All's fair in love and war.

[LaurieAG]

But, from another angle, what if Hicks is actually guilty? What was he doing with Al Qaida in the first place?.......What I am saying, though, is that there might just be a real reason for Hicks still being there, and politicising the issue might make for cheap politics and not much else.

 

Do you know Boersun, that Habeas Corpus came into being to prevent king John from locking up people to rot in his dungeons without giving them a prompt and fair trial (as per due process).

[LaurieAG]

So, it is the best for national security to use executive privilege to deny their rights until war is over.

 

That might be considered OK, for the middle ages prior to 1200 or so.

[Michaelangelica]

It does mention some rights may be refused in times of war.

Bull sh*t

There are rules of war. Otherwise the Nazis have won

 

 

Re:Fraser says Govts want Hicks Guilty - Top Stories - Australian News Message Boards

Re:Fraser says Govts want Hicks Guilty Reply to this message

I'm not crying over Hicks. His guilt or innocence is not my concern. Follow closely and try to understand....

People should not be held in detention for 5 years without charges or trial. Guantanamo Bay violates the Geneva convention. The manner in which people were being held was declared illegal by the USA's own courts. Did Bush change situation to conform to the law? No. He changed the law to conform to the situation. The Australian government knows that the practices at Guantanamo Bay violate human rights. The Australian government knows that the detention of Hicks and others at Guantanamo Bay is illegal. The Australian government hung and Australian out to dry. It is only in recent days that the Australian government has started to change it's position about the detention of Hicks at Guantanamo bay. Gosh, I can't imagine that it could possibly have anything to do with the looming election and the current opinion polls. But does the Australian government really want to challenge it's American allies or are they just trying to make the Australian public think that they are doing the right thing. If people don't stand up against the abuse of human rights, the abuse will only continue and escalate. Bit by bit your rights will be eroded until you find yourself living in a dictatorship with no rights at all.

 

Fine. You don't care. But maybe, one day, it will be YOU held in illegal detention and hung out to dry by your own government. I wonder how much you'll care then?

 

Fraser says govt betrayed Hicks

 

 

February 16, 2007 - 11:24AM

AdvertisementAdvertisement

 

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser has accused the Howard government of betraying Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

 

"However much the Blair (UK) government should be condemned for its participation in the Iraq war, for its encouragement of a venture doomed to failure from the very outset, it did not betray the basic legal rights of its citizens," Mr Fraser told a conference on human rights in Melbourne.

 

"The Australian government has."

 

Mr Fraser also said the military commission process that Hicks will face has been structured to produce a guilty verdict.

Fraser says govt betrayed Hicks - Breaking News - National - Breaking News

 

David Hicks has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002.

 

David Hicks has been held at Guantanamo Bay since 2002. (file photo)

 

Govt working for Hicks guilty verdict: Fraser

 

Former prime minister Malcolm Fraser says the United States and Australian governments are working to ensure Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks is found guilty.

 

Mr Fraser has addressed eminent Australians, academics and teachers at a human rights education conference at the University of Melbourne.

 

He says the Howard Government has done nothing to stop the delays and torturous conditions at Guantanamo Bay.

 

"After five years of quite inhumane and degrading treatment, a verdict of innocence would be extraordinarily embarrassing to both governments, perhaps enough to defeat a government as more and more Australians really come to understand the nature of government's betrayal of the rights of an Australian citizen," he said.

 

"On this analysis, the United States cannot and clearly will not allow a fair trial."

 

"As the bottom line, if the United States had wanted a fair trial, it would have used the normal court system or military court martials - we could all then have confidence in either course.

 

"The United States has in fact spent enormous energy to try and guarantee the kind of verdict it clearly wants."

Govt working for Hicks guilty verdict: Fraser. 16/02/2007. ABC News Online