Hicks saga continues

[Gob]

The United States has accepted that the former Guantanamo inmate, Australian citizen David Hicks, is innocent, his lawyer says.

Lawyer Stephen Kenny told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) that he expected Hicks's 2007 conviction "to be set aside".

Hicks's lawyers appealed his conviction last month, saying it was unsound.

Hicks had pleaded guilty to terrorism charges in a deal that allowed him to complete his sentence in Australia.

The Australian was convicted of providing "material support for terrorism" and transferred from Guantanamo Bay to an Australian jail for the remaining months of his sentence.

Hicks - nicknamed "the Australian Taliban" by the press - was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 on suspicion of fighting alongside Taliban and al-Qaeda militants.

He was sent to the US military prison Guantanamo Bay the following year, where he says was tortured. His lawyers have said he confessed under duress, at a time when he was suicidal and desperate to leave Guantanamo.

In an interview with ABC radio, Mr Kenny also said the charges against Hicks were not valid, as demonstrated by recent court rulings in the US. He said he expected a US military commission to respond to the appeal within a month.

"I have no doubt that whether or not the military commission clears David, he will certainly be cleared in the higher courts of the United States if we need to go there," he told ABC.

US civilian courts have ruled that the charge of providing material support for terrorism cannot be considered a war crime in cases that were brought for actions before 2006, when new laws were adopted.

A US military commission recently overturned the conviction of a former Guantanamo inmate from Sudan, Noor Mohammed, who made a plea bargain under a similar charge to Hicks.

"There had been court rulings that the charge Mr Hicks pleaded guilty to was not actually a crime so the charge was 'simply invalid'," Mr Kenny told ABC, citing the Noor Mohammed case as a precedent.

According to Reuters news agency, the Pentagon has refused to comment directly on the Hicks case, saying it was a matter for the courts.

"The government will make additional responses through court filings," Lt Col Myles Caggins, a Pentagon spokesman, was quoted as saying.

In the ABC interview, Mr Kenny also said he hoped the Australian government - which at the time had supported Hicks's detention at Guantanamo - would apologise for its actions.

Last year, a scathing US Senate report said the CIA carried out "brutal" interrogations of al-Qaeda suspects. The report concluded that the agency misled politicians and the public about the 2001-2007 programme for terror suspects.

The CIA has defended its actions in the years after the 9/11 attacks on the US, saying they saved lives.

[Lord Jim]

David Hicks, is innocent, his lawyer says.

Ah, his lawyer says he's innocent...

Well, that settles it then...

[rubato]

If it weren't for torture we would have had to let him go! The Bush administration would have been forced to do the right thing.




yrs,
rubato

[Big RR]

No, we just would have kept him imprisoned anyway; it's not like they need any reason--under W or Obama.

[rubato]

So you don't think torturing him into confessing help get a conviction?

Your opinion.



yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

sorry sarge, I tripped and accidently shot him....

that s 20 extra push ups for you private! (and in a quiet whisper) g'job mate...

[Big RR]

rubato--I presume that it might well have, but what do you think would have happened if he hadn't confessed--that he would have been freed? I sincerely doubt it. There are many who have now been held for more than a decade without any legal recourse or the opportunity to be heard by any court or tribunal and who may not have confessed to anything even under duress. And this has occurred under the W and Obama administrations, even after the torture has supposedly stopped.

[Sue U]

First Military Commission Conviction Reversed
Former Guantánamo Prisoner Not Guilty of “Material Support”

February 18, 2015, Washington D.C. – Today, the U.S. Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) vacated former Guantánamo prisoner David Hicks’s conviction in the military commissions for providing material support for terrorism. Hicks was the first prisoner to be convicted in a Guantánamo military commission and a party to CCR’s historic Supreme Court victory in Rasul v. Bush, which established that Guantánamo prisoners have a right to access U.S. courts to challenge their detention. Today’s ruling comes in the wake of an en banc decision by the D.C. Circuit, Al Bahlul v. United States, which held that material support for terrorism is not an offense triable by military commission.

“We are very happy for David. Today’s decision is a powerful reminder that he committed no crime, he is innocent of any offense,” said CCR Senior Staff Attorney Wells Dixon. “David Hicks can now be truly free of Guantánamo.”

Hicks pled guilty to providing material support for terrorism in 2007 because he was tortured and desperate to be free from Guantánamo. His torture is detailed in a 74-page affidavit released in 2012.

http://www.ccrjustice.org/newsroom/pres ... n-reversed

[Lord Jim]

Today’s decision is a powerful reminder that he committed no crime, he is innocent of any offense,”

Of course this decision is absolutely nothing of the sort.

[Lord Jim]

We had a lengthy and spirited exchange about this before, but just to remind everyone again of exactly what this little POS did:

the evidence is really quite straight forward:

The War in Afghanistan began on October 7, 2001,[17] as the armed forces of the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and the Afghan United Front (Northern Alliance) launched Operation Enduring Freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afg ... present%29

In January 2001, Hicks was provided with funding and an introductory letter from Lashkar-e-Taiba. He then travelled to Afghanistan to attend training

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_Afg ... present%29

Hicks' writes this in his book:

There were three or four camps under the name of Camp Farouk at that time in Afghanistan. I attended the open mainstream camp, not terrorist camps. I would not have been there if there was any suggestion of terrorist activity or the targeting of civilians.

Now, while he's obviously attempting to whitewash his participation, he still admits that he was a willing. participant in military camp operated by the Taliban. (His claims about terrorism and civilians, even if they are true, would be irrelevant in assessing his status as a traitor.)

Again, from The Traitor Hick's own hand, we see what his actual frame of mind was during the two months between 9/11 and his capture in the field by The Northern Alliance:

In October and November 2001 Hicks wrote multiple letters to his mother, Sue King, back in Australia. He asked that replies were to be directed to Abu Muslim Austraili, a pseudonym he used to circumvent non-Muslim spies he believed intercepted correspondence. In these letters he detailed the validity of Jihad and his own prospect of "martyrdom".

As a Muslim young and fit my responsibility is to protect my brothers from aggressive non-believers and not let them destroy it. Islam will rule again but for now we must have patience we are asked to sacrifice our lives for Allah cause why not? There are many privileges in heaven. It is not just war, it is jihad. One reward I get in being martyred I get to take ten members of my family to heaven who were destined for hell, but first I also must be martyred. We are all going to die one day so why not be martyred?[32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks

So, during the period after Australia enters combat against the Taliban, Hicks is prepared to be"martyred" in a fight defending his "brothers" , and along with them to " sacrifice our lives for Allah" in an armed struggle, ("not just war, it is jihad") against his countrymen and their allies...

And we know this how? Not because of the claims of some nefarious informant; but because he tells us so himself....

And then of course, he is apprehended:

Three months after the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US, 26 year old Australian David Hicks was captured amongst Taliban forces in Afghanistan and handed over to the Americans.

http://www.abc.net.au/archives/80days/s ... 412143.htm

(Please note; I have left out anything he confessed to at Gitmo, or any allegation made that is a part of the record of The Military Commission.)

Now let's review the relevant timeline again:

Hicks joins up with the Taliban in January of 2001...

On Oct. 7, 2001, Australia enters into military operations against the Taliban with The Coalition....

In December of 2001, Hicks is captured in the field with other Taliban fighters...

Now let's look again at the relevant sections of the Australian code governing treason:

(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; [Yes] or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:[Yes]

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared;[Yes]

(f) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist:

(i) another country;[Yes] or
(ii) an organisation;[Yes]

"GUILTY!"

[Sue U]

Except he wasn't either charged or tried in Australia, or under Australian law, or for treason. He entered a guilty plea before an American military commission to an offense under the U.S. Code ("material support for terrorism") that simply did not exist at the time he is alleged to have committed the acts required for conviction under the statute.

Can you say "ex post facto"? The DC Circuit Court of Appeals certainly could.

[Lord Jim]

I understand that Sue, I'm responding to the demonstrably false nonsense that the CCR Attorney is quoted as saying, and the sub headline: "Former Guantánamo Prisoner Not Guilty of “Material Support” ".

He hasn't been found "not guilty" of anything, let alone "Innocent". His conviction in this case was thrown out based on a problem with the law he was convicted under; not any absolving of wrong doing on his part.

I find it galling that this ruling is being deliberately misrepresented by some as some sort of vindication for an innocent victim. Hicks is absolutely not that; far from it.

[BoSoxGal]

The 'problem with the law' is that it didn't exist. An individual can't break a law that doesn't exist. Thus, he is innocent.

[Sue U]

As BSG said, you can't be "guilty" of something that's not a crime. So "Not Guilty" is entirely accurate. (There is no such thing as a separate finding of "innocent," only guilty or not, and if not, then by definition "innocent" of the crime charged.)

I certainly don't approve of or otherwise condone the things that David Hicks did, but if they're not actually illegal then it is at least debatable whether it is actually "wrong doing." And even if it were, that doesn't excuse three years' imprisonment before even being charged with anything, much less the ill-treatment inflicted upon him.

[Lord Jim]

"Not Guilty" is entirely accurate.

Sorry, not buying that...

Vacating a conviction on the basis that the court in question did not have the authority to try him on the charge does not in any way shape or form mean that he is "not guilty" (let alone "innocent") of having committed the actions that resulted in the charge...

To argue that it does mean that would be Orwellian...

My only real regret about this guy's stint at Gitmo, (given the actions that he was engaging in, my sympathy for him is exactly zero) is that it created a political environment in Australia where public opinion became more focused on Gitmo then the treasonous actions he engaged in. As a result he was never charged and tried as he should have been.

[BoSoxGal]

It does, in fact, mean exactly that - he's not guilty of any crime because there was no such crime detailed in the law during the time period he engaged in actions for which he was charged/convicted.

Nothing Orwellian about it; these are pretty basic concepts in the US legal system, to which you are bound - all 'opinions' aside.

[Gob]

I find Jim guilty of not saluting the Aussie flag daily. There's no actual law about it, but I'm sure we could make one up in future.

[BoSoxGal]

Exactly!

[Lord Jim]

I find Jim guilty of not saluting the Aussie flag daily. There's no actual law about it, but I'm sure we could make one up in future.

~sigh~

Yuck yuck yuck...

That the Australians find an obsession about "Gitmo" to be more important than the indisputable factual elements of this traitor's treasonous activities is frankly, quite depressing...

Apparently the Aussies care more about an Australian traitor being held for a few years in a US camp (after having been removed directly from the battlefield) then they care about the actual acts of treason that the traitor committed...

That seems to be the case, and I find it very sad...

[Lord Jim]

As for the "ill treatment" the poor dear lad allegedly received:

The fact that he hasn't swung from the end of a rope means he's gotten far better treatment then he deserves. Hell, he's even been permitted to profit from his treason with a book deal...

The morally appropriate thing to do would be to confiscate the profits from that book, (and any other money the traitor has obtained by virtue of his treason) and put the money in a fund to benefit the widows and families of the honorable, decent young Australians who lost their lives serving their country (rather than betraying it) in Afghanistan and Iraq.