The Worst Of The Worst
Donald Rumsfeld described the prisoners at Guantanamo as the "worst of the worst."
The first of these worst to be tried, David Hicks, received the following:
Nine months of imprisonment in Australia. The maximum sentence he was facing was life.
He is barred from talking to the media for a year.
He was required to admit that prosecutors had sufficient evidence to convict him of the charges that were brought against him (not that he was guilty of the charges).
He had to recant his allegations that he had been tortured and he can't sue the government for mistreatment.
Finally, if he writes a book, proceeds go to the Australian government.
I practice law with a criminal defense lawyer. I recited what is set out above and asked him what he thought. "He was tortured and they don't want him talking about it." That seems about right to me.
The stupid part about this deal from the Administration's point of view is that he will be out on the street in February of next year and in June 2008 he is free to talk about his torture, just as the '08 election campaigns are heating up.
8 comments:
Apparently, governments have power to impose whatever sentences they want. But what is the basis for such a sentence? What constitutional clause or precedent could you cite for "can't tell anyone what we did to you?"
That's part of my point. The gag order isn't imposed. The government and his lawyers worked a deal that he would keep quiet about what happened to him to coerce (my opinion) his "confession" in return for minimal further time in prison. This says to me, they probably didn't have much on him and what they had they got by coercion.
I think you are right-- there was probably no evidence to corroborate the confession.
I suspect acquittal was a real possibility even under the kangaroo evidentiary rules.
~Becky
He's a white guy from an allied country. I doubt if any Arabs will be offered such a lenient deal.
If they stick them in a cage for the rest of their lives, they won't be able to tell what was done to them, either.
I think most Americans would be appalled if we knew the truth about Guantanamo, but not all that much manages to filter down to us. I sure hope some of those guys are as bad as they keep telling us, but we know that some of them are not. I don't think that holding people indefinitely without charges, or not allowing them to see the evidence against them, represents our values as a free society. This radio show episode was interesting (and also discouraging): Habeas Schmabeas.
As an update, I read a piece about Australian reaction to the deal. Those opposing the Prime Minister's re-election this fall, accuse him of brokering this deal to keep Hicks mute until the election is over???
Hey just a message from an Aussie reader. You are right, the point of the gag order is to keep David Hicks quiet until the Australian parliamentary election in November is over.
But don't worry, as soon as he comes back to Australia, a bunch of lawyers are going to be challenging the legality of Hicks detention and gag orders (in fact there's a case ongoing in our High Court at the moment). Given how dodgy the matter has been under even American law, there's little chance of the sentence standing upto a challenge under Australian law.
Then we're going to be hearing all about the torture ...
AB - Thanks for the info.
Post a Comment