Hick's nice little earner..

[MajGenl.Meade]

Five minutes and then straight to the rubbish heap

yrs
Leon Trotsky

[Big RR]

Jim--whether or not he's guilty of treason is debatable, but I agree with you about one thing--it should be decided by a court in a public trial. Sadly, in the US we'd just kill him abroad, as we did with Awlaki, rather than even consider a trial--after all, the court might exercise some independent judgment. Try as he might, Obama can't duck that.

[The Hen]

First was the claim for excessive malaria medication, I said nothing because I was a mosquito.

Then came the allegations of "truth serum", I said nothing because I was a lie ...

New evidence has emerged that all Guantanamo Bay detainees, including David Hicks, were drugged involuntarily with a substance that has a long history as a truth serum.

Recently declassified US documents revealing medical procedures have shown that scopolamine was administered to all detainees taken to the Cuban detention centre.

The documents, which were standard operating procedures for nursing staff, were obtained by the independent US news outlet Truthout, and reveal that the rationale for the drug's use on all detainees was to prevent motion sickness.

However, US military experts have said that scopolamine is not recommended for motion sickness because of its severe side effects.

The US government has not responded to questions by The Sun-Herald about drugs given involuntarily to detainees.

The Sun-Herald revealed this month that Mr Hicks and other detainees were drugged against their will with unknown substances and that detainees' medical records were incomplete, with the names and dosages of drugs removed.

Details of the mistreatment of Mr Hicks were about to emerge publicly for the first time in legal action, by the federal government, to stop him receiving revenue from his book Guantanamo: My Journey, until the government abandoned the case.

Witnesses and previously secret documents were to have backed up Mr Hicks's long-held claims of abuse. Commonwealth prosecutors decided that the proceeds of crime case would not stand up in court and dropped the action.

Mr Hicks has told The Sun-Herald he was given a drug during his journey to Guantanamo Bay that left him drowsy and disoriented.

He said it was administered by injection, not a patch behind his ear as is described in the standard operating procedures.

Information released by the US spy agency, the CIA, has revealed that because of its many undesirable side effects, scopolamine had been disqualified as a truth drug.

It listed its most disabling side effects as hallucinations, disturbed perception, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and blurred vision.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/us-use-o ... z286mE4WlI

[MajGenl.Meade]

It listed its most disabling side effects as hallucinations, disturbed perception, headaches, rapid heartbeat, and blurred vision.

Yeah we had a name for that back in the day. I don't remember what it was.

Meade

[loCAtek]

I have NEVER said he was a folk hero at this time.

As already stated: granted. Then we agree.



After some careful thought, the concern about how a pharmaceutical may aggravate a known depressive condition began to sound familiar…

It began to sound like mefloquine had the same (or less severe) medicinal side effects as:

Marijuana


The THC in marijuana is also a probable cause of first psychotic episodes; anxiety and paranoia, in depressives in much the same way as described in mefloquine usage. Those with a previous history of depression (or schizophrenia) were those who might have adverse reactions to the chemicals; in a very low percentage per users.
However, in this country, those rare instances have not barred the medical use of marijuana for millions who stand to benefit. A number far exceeding those who are proscribed mefloquine.

Statistically, Mefloquine has shown far less adverse reactions than the use of medical marijuana; a controlled substance legally condoned in many areas of the US. So even in high dosages, it is no more harmful than THC.

Also paranoia or psychosis is not conducive to interrogation; those states tend to be disassociated from reality, and do not provide reliable, consistent intel.

[The Hen]

Hmmm. Nothing to add on this case then..

Noted

And at least you have stopped claiming I ever said Hicks was 'a heroic whistleblower', have agreed your error over the use of the word 'hero' and have accepted my original statement regarding his future place in history in Australia.

"Things are looking up", said the midget.

[loCAtek]

Also, why is Hicks being lauded as a heroic whistle-blower with this book, when it's been public knowledge that there was an investigation over two years ago?

He can neither confirm nor deny, he was given any drugs.

Was this investigation in the media, what gave him the idea to include the allegations?

This wasn't directed specifically at you Hen. Nor I did use the term folk hero.

[Crackpot]

Please don't respond it's really not worth it.

[The Hen]

On an unrelated note, I see Michael Mori (Hicks defence lawyer) will soon no longer be a Marine. At least he has been able to secure emplyment in Melbourne.

US lawyer for David Hicks takes a Shine to Melbourne

IN A personal reinvention, the US military lawyer who represented Guantanamo detainee David Hicks has moved to Australia to work as a civilian lawyer.

Major Michael Mori, as he was known then, is ensconced in Melbourne's inner north with his wife and three sons and is already showing he is in tune with the rhythms of his adopted state: he is looking for an AFL team to support.

Meanwhile, he starts a new job today - as plain Mr Mori - in the Lonsdale Street offices of the plaintiff law firm Shine.

While he always had a soft spot for Australia after first visiting on a rugby tour here in his 20s and later making trips advocating for his controversial client, the move to join the Australian legal community was not a carefully laid plan, although he had been scouting for new directions.

Overlooked three times for promotion after his advocacy for Mr Hicks and public criticism of the US military commission trial processes, Mr Mori maintains a lawyerly caution these days about whether his role in the international legal saga was the kiss of death for his 22-year career in the US Marine Corps.

It is a matter of public record, however, that he was threatened in 2007 with court martial by the then chief prosecutor at Guantanamo for speaking out for Mr Hicks. Other military lawyers, according to US press reports, also found careers stalled after representing accused terrorists.

In his book Guantanamo: My Journey, Mr Hicks described Mr Mori as a ''courageous man with a big heart''.

Mr Mori, 46, secured his hard-fought promotion to lieutenant-colonel in 2009 and ended up as a military judge in Hawaii. He handed in his retirement papers this year, but remains technically a marine until October.

Starting out in the law as something of an accidental advocate - ''being a lawyer was really just a job for the Marine Corps for me'' - Mr Mori's philosophy is a simple one: everyone is entitled to fair representation.

Although he has to study some local subjects to gain formal admission as a solicitor in Victoria, he will immediately take a role expanding his new firm's social justice work. The intent is to work for the ''Davids'' over the legal ''Goliaths''.

Mr Mori - known to family and friends by his middle name, Dan - also plans to develop interests in criminal law and has been following the issue of sexual abuse in the Australian military which, he says, has echoes of what has occurred in the US.

Does he stay in touch with Mr Hicks, now a free man living in Sydney after a plea deal that he helped him strike in 2007? ''You can't sit in a room with someone for 3½ years and not [be friends]. Yes, I consider David a friend, I would always be there and help him if I could.''


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z28CMKDqCE

[The Hen]

I thought this article said it pretty well:

Maybe Dave just shouldn’t have joined the Taliban

In a similar vein Jim, I have recently stumbled across this political opinion piece from Ben Saul (professor of international law at the University of Sydney and counsel for David Hicks in his complaint to the United Nations), that eloquently conveys the underlying 'national' feeling on the way this has been handled by the Australian Government.

The persecution of David Hicks is a dark stain on the nation's soul
Date
September 8, 2012

CRITICS of David Hicks have been eerily quiet since prosecutors dropped their court case aimed at seizing the profits from his book. The critics have been left covered in mud after prosecutors publicly conceded that evidence from Guantanamo probably would not pass muster in an Australian court.

Their admission is the closest we have come to a formal acknowledgment by any Australian authority that Hicks' military trial was defective by ordinary standards of justice. It would have been hugely embarrassing to the Howard government if an Australian court had officially thrown out the evidence and condemned George Bush's kangaroo court.

It is extraordinary that it took prosecutors so long to recognise what a world of lawyers, and much of the Australian public, have long understood - that evidence from Guantanamo was dodgy and Hicks' trial was unfair. The withdrawal of that case brings to an end the official harassment of Hicks under Australian law. It is not, however, the end of the story. While Hicks is now free to get on with his life, there remain lingering questions about his treatment by the United States and Australia.

The charge on which Hicks was convicted, providing material support for terrorism, is still being challenged in the US courts by other Guantanamo detainees. It is alleged that the offence was retrospective since it was unknown to the law of war or US law before 9/11. A decision is expected at any time.

Freedom from retrospective punishment is a sacred US constitutional right, and a human right under international law. It safeguards against arbitrary state power by preventing governments from designating their opponents as criminals after the fact.

If the offence is knocked over in the US courts, the basis of Hicks' conviction will collapse. There are also unanswered questions of accountability facing the Australian government. In opposition, Labor attacked the Howard government for supporting Bush's military trials, arguing that they violated the laws of war, human rights and basic justice.

Once elected in 2007, Labor went hypocritically quiet. It has rebuffed calls for an inquiry into Hicks' treatment. In the absence of domestic human rights laws, Hicks is unable to expose his mistreatment in the Australian courts.

One avenue remains open to Hicks. In 2010 he lodged a complaint against Australia with the United Nations, alleging violations by Australia of an international human rights treaty. The committee is expected to deliver its decision soon, after hearing Australia's response.

Hicks argues his offence was retrospective and contrary to international law. By enforcing his sentence in an Adelaide prison, Hicks believes that Australia took over responsibility from the US for his unlawful punishment. Australia detained him unlawfully under international law because his offence was retrospective and he did not receive a fair trial.

While prisoners are often transferred to prisons in their own countries for humanitarian reasons, this must not involve prison based on a flagrant denial of justice. Australia should have done what Britain successfully did - insist that none of its citizens be prosecuted in an unfair trial at Guantanamo, and demand their immediate return home.

While Hicks pleaded guilty, he argues that his plea was obtained under duress, given his harsh treatment and conditions at Guantanamo Bay. His plea required him to surrender his right to appeal, freedom to speak openly, and freedom from undue interference by law enforcement. In his UN complaint, Hicks says Australian officials were involved in various ways in the plea deal, which implicates Australia in denying these rights.

Further, by interviewing Hicks in US custody to gather intelligence, and in utilising that evidence in its control order case, Australia participated in his unlawful treatment by the US. That included ill-treatment, unlawful detention and inhumane conditions of detention. Australia's support for Hicks' trial is also likely to constitute unlawful assistance to the US in Hicks' unfair trial.

It is no secret that Hicks was abused in US custody. But Australia failed to independently investigate credible allegations of torture made by an Australian citizen, where the US had failed to explain his injuries.

Finally, Hicks says the anti-terrorism ''control order'' imposed on him was neither necessary nor resulted from a fair process. As such, the restrictions it placed on Hicks' rights (including liberty, privacy and communication) were neither necessary nor proportionate. The control order was also imposed on the basis of the same conduct for which he had already served a criminal sentence, violating his freedom from double punishment.

Australian politicians have a convenient habit of looking forward, not backwards. But justice requires accounting for the past, including for people we may dislike, and even if it makes governments squirm.

Fortunately, the United Nations can provide back-up where national political and legal systems fail to do justice to their own people.

Ben Saul is professor of international law at the University of Sydney and counsel for David Hicks in his complaint to the United Nations.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z28TYWEbKK

[Lord Jim]

treason

Under the Commonwealth Criminal Code treason has two aspects.

Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth) makes it an an offence to cause the death of, or harm to, the Sovereign, the heir apparent, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister.

It also encompasses levying war against the Commonwealth of Australia and assisting an enemy at war with Australia.

http://www.caslon.com.au/seditionnote2.htm

Wow, could there possibly be a more clear cut case meeting that criteria?

If I were an Australian, I'd be saving my outrage for the fact that this traitor has not been tried for treason, rather than wringing my hands over the slimeball's stint at Gitmo....

Hicks is now free to get on with his life

That is the part I would find most upsetting, given what the man did.

eloquently conveys the underlying 'national' feeling

Hen, is there some polling that's been done that shows wide spread national support for the traitor?

I have to say that personally I have to take with a very large quantity of salt the views and characterizations of a man who is serving as an attorney for the traitor...

To me the real miscarriage of justice is the fact that this treasonous sleaze bag only spent six years in custody, given the gravity of what he did. Seems to me that there's way to much focus on the supposed mistreatment this clown got, and way to little on what he did.

I would find it sad, (if it is true, again, I'd like to see some polling on it before I would conclude that it is) if a majority of Australians are more upset about a person who committed treason against their country being held in detention for six years, (to the point that they actually even feel sorry for him) than they are about the treason committed by this man against their country.

[The Hen]

I am finding it difficult to link to any large national poll on the matter, but I can come up with references such as follows in a number of major, respected papers:

Mr Rudd's pledge on David Hicks came as a Newspoll of 1200 people conducted this week found 71 per cent of Australians — including two-thirds of Liberal voters — agreed with the call to bring him home.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 53125.html

[Lord Jim]

I believe that say after a year or so, (after all, this guy was writing letters home bragging about meeting Osama Bin Ladin, "twenty times" some interrogation was certainly in order) it would have been entirely appropriate for the Australian government to request that that Hicks be handed over to them, not to "stand up for him", but to try him for treason.

And given the standard for treason under Australian law, and the undisputed actions he engaged in prior to his detention, it should have been quite easy to obtain a conviction without using any evidence obtained at Gitmo, if that had been necessary.

Here's the entire code:

Section 80.1 of the Criminal Code, contained in the schedule of the Australian Criminal Code Act 1995,[3] defines treason as follows:

"A person commits an offence, called treason, if the person:

(a) causes the death of the Sovereign, the heir apparent of the Sovereign, the consort of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(b) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister resulting in the death of the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(c) causes harm to the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister, or imprisons or restrains the Sovereign, the Governor-General or the Prime Minister; or
(d) levies war, or does any act preparatory to levying war, against the Commonwealth; or
(e) engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, with intent to assist, an enemy:

(i) at war with the Commonwealth, whether or not the existence of a state of war has been declared; and
(ii) specified by Proclamation made for the purpose of this paragraph to be an enemy at war with the Commonwealth; or

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

(i) another country; or
(ii) an organisation;

that is engaged in armed hostilities against the Australian Defence Force; or
(g) instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth; or
(h) forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act."

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

Pretty much an open and shut case....

Since the penalty for treason under Australian law is life in prison, (Australia having unwisely abolished the death penalty for treason in 1985) presumably The Traitor Hicks would still be incarcerated, rather than running around free, profiting from his treason, and getting a bunch of well meaning but badly misguided people to feel sorry for him.

ETA:

a Newspoll of 1200 people conducted this week found 71 per cent of Australians — including two-thirds of Liberal voters — agreed with the call to bring him home.

Well presumably with a question phrased like that, within that 71% were people who thought he should have been "brought home" for variety of reasons, running the gamut all the way from "he should be brought home to save our boy from the Americans" to "he should be brought home so he can stand trial for treason; he committed a greater crime against our country than he did against anybody elses so that is what he should answer for"

If I were an Australian, I might very well have answered that poll question "yes"...(with obviously the latter reasoning in mind.)

[The Hen]

Its really not about feeling sorry for him Jim. This is where you keep getting distracted.

It is about disgruntlement about the lack of appropriate Governmental intervention under such circumstances.

The rest comes later, or never as the case maybe.

The Hicks case has been seen as an indictment of both Governments (Labor and Liberal) over the lack of basic support that all Autralian citizens should expect when being held overseas without charge.

[Lord Jim]

Its really not about feeling sorry for him Jim. This is where you keep getting distracted.

It is about disgruntlement about the lack of appropriate Governmental intervention under such circumstances.

The rest comes later, or never as the case maybe.

The Hicks case has been seen as an indictment of both Governments (Labor and Liberal) over the lack of basic support that all Autralian citizens should expect when being held overseas without charge.

See, this is where we just fundamentally disagree....

To me, the "distraction" here is the time he spent at Gitmo, and the fundamental issue is the, well, the traitor thing, and the fact that the guy has gotten off so lightly for his treason...I don't see that as "The rest comes later, or never as the case maybe", I see that as the absolutely central point, where the primary focus ought to be.

Now, if his detention time at Gitmo has compromised the government's ability to try him for treason, (and thus have him face a sentence more in line with his crimes than six years in detention) then for that reason I would be upset about it.

[Gob]

Well if your concern is David Hick's alleged treason, surely the US should have turned him over to Australia for trial Jim?

What happened instead?

A bunch of joke charges were laid while he was being held in solitary in Gitmo, and probably tortured.....

Then on 29 June 2006, the US Supreme Court ruled that the military commissions were illegal under United States law and the Geneva Conventions. The commission trying Hicks was abolished and the charges against him voided.

So a year later and after more torture, the U.S. military commission announced that it had prepared new charges against David Hicks. The drafted charges were "attempted murder" and "providing material support for terrorism", under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Followed by this fucking joke justice!

On 26 March 2007, following negotiations with Hicks's defense lawyers, the convening authority Judge Susan Crawford directly approved the terms of a pre-trial agreement. The agreement stipulated that Hicks enter a guilty plea to a single charge of providing material support for terrorism in return for a guarantee of a much shorter sentence than had been previously sought by the prosecution. The agreement also stipulated that the 5 years already spent by Hicks at Guantanamo Bay could not be subtracted from any sentence handed down, that Hicks must not speak to the media for one year nor take legal action against the United States, and that Hicks withdraw allegations that the U.S. military abused him. Accordingly, in the first ever conviction by the Guantanamo military tribunal and the first conviction in a U.S. war crimes trial since World War II, on 31 March, the tribunal handed down a seven year jail sentence for the charge, suspending all but 9 months.

Now, isn't it about time your ire switched from Hicks to the monumentaly stupid, unjust, and downright immoral "justice system" which tried him?

Just a thought....

[Gob]

A summary of Guantánamo Bay statistics, accurate as of 16 July 2012. Access the Reprieve ‘Life after Guantánamo’ project Q&A page and a comprehensive timeline of key Guantánamo events here.
779 acknowledged prisoners held in Guantánamo Bay to date (there are indications that various prisoners were held in Guantánamo Bay in secret from 2003 until June 2004 when the US Supreme Court ordered that the prisoners be allowed access to courts, but these prisoners have never been identified).

242 prisoners when President Obama took office.

168 current prisoners.

Citizens of 48 countries have been held at Guantánamo.

68 prisoners transferred by Obama: 40 to 16 less developed countries, and 28 to home countries.

532 prisoners transferred by Bush.

50 countries that have accepted Guantánamo detainees.

At least 10 detainees transferred to an undetermined country.

535 men reviewed by Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

497 men designated enemy combatants by Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

38 men designated no longer enemy combatants by Combatant Status Review Tribunals.

89 prisoners cleared for release/approved for transfer by Obama's interagency task force.

59 cleared for transfer but cannot leave because of instability in their home countries, inability to get foreign countries to help out with resettlements and Congressional restrictions.

89 prisoners cleared for release/approved for transfer by Obama's interagency task force still in Guantánamo.

22 prisoners approved for transfer in need of humanitarian protection.

48 prisoners approved for indefinite detention without trial. (2 have died in detention)

44 prisoners referred for prosecution in federal court or military commissions.

36 subjects of active cases or investigation

59 decided habeas cases: 38 prisoners granted habeas and 21 prisoners denied habeas.

25 prisoners granted habeas who have been transferred.

13 prisoners granted habeas who continue to be detained.

6 military commission trials.

4 military commissions to end in plea bargain.

1 contested military commission trial.

1 Guantánamo detainee tried in Civilian Court under Obama.

16 Guantánamo detainees known to have been held in CIA facilities.

112 Yemenis ever held in Guantánamo.

88 Yemenis still held in Guantánamo.

57 Yemenis approved for transfer still in Guantánamo.

30 detainees from Yemen designated for 'conditional' detention.

4 prisoners who died under Bush

7 prisoners who died under Obama (1 of cancer)

It costs $700,000 extra per prisoner, to keep a captive at Guantánamo rather than in a US federal prison.

Returning to the United States, interviews disclose that 9/11 rescue workers who volunteered after the September 11, 2001 attacks were denied government funds to care for physical and psychological maladies they subsequently developed, including respiratory disease and PTSD-induced bruxism. Unable to receive and afford medical care in the U.S., the 9/11 rescue workers, as well as all of Moore's friends in the film needing medical attention, appear to sail from Miami to Cuba on three speedboats in order to obtain free medical care provided for the enemy combatants detained at the U.S. Guantanamo Bay detainment camp. The group arrives at the entrance channel to "Gitmo" and Moore uses a megaphone to request access, pleading for the 9/11 victims to receive treatment that is on par with the medical attention the "evildoers" are receiving. The attempt ceases when a siren is blown from the base, and the group moves on to Havana, where they purchase inexpensive medicine and receive free medical treatment at the elite Hermanos Ameijeiras Hospital. Providing only their names and birth dates, the volunteers are hospitalized and receive medical attention. Before they leave, the 9/11 rescue workers are honored by a local Havana fire station.

[Lord Jim]

Well if your concern is David Hick's alleged treason, surely the US should have turned him over to Australia for trial Jim?

The Australian government never took the position I would have taken:

"We understand, based on his statements, that Hicks may have some valuable intel on Al Qeada's plans and methods that could be important in thwarting future terror attacks, so some interrogation of him about this is clearly warranted.

However, you've had him long enough now to have gotten whatever information he might be able to provide. Therefore we request that you turn him over to us, because we consider that his primary crime is that of treason, and we want him to answer for this crime. He committed this crime against Australia, and just as you would want anyone who committed treason against the United States to face justice in the United States, we too want him to answer for this crime against our country and our people"

Had the Australian government made a request of that nature I have absolutely no doubt that he would have been turned over.

If there was a failure on the part of the Australian government here, it wasn't that they failed to "stand up" for The Traitor Hicks, it's that they failed to bring him back to Australia to face justice for his treason.

And now apparently he never will face that justice, so he's running around scot-free after just six years, singing "poor poor pitiful me" and earning money off of his treason....

So yes, Hicks certainly hasn't gotten justice...

[Gob]

But he never had; "some valuable intel on Al Qeada's plans and methods that could be important in thwarting future terror attacks,"?

[Gob]

And don't forget, he served his time, as laid down by the specious charges laid against him by the US governemt, and was never ever convicted of anything. (Just like the majority of victims of Gunatanamo "justice".)

775 detainees have been brought to Guantanamo. Most of these have been released without charge. The United States government continues to classify many of these released detainees as "enemy combatants". As of September 2012, 166 detainees remain at Guantanamo. As of December 2008, around 50-60 detainees have been cleared for release, but have not actually been released due to difficulties in repatriating them

So 770 in, over 500 released, 166 remaining, justice served?