Australian Gitmo Detainee Sentenced To 8 Months Jail

[bevin]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070331/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/guantanamo_hicks

Quote:

GUANTANAMO BAY NAVAL BASE, Cuba - An Australian who complained of his treatment at the U.S. prison at Guantanamo was convicted of supporting terrorism, but will spend less than a year in jail at home in a deal that requires his silence about alleged abuse.

Quote:

Furthermore, the judge said, the agreement bars Hicks from suing the U.S. government for alleged abuse, denies him any right to appeal his conviction and imposes a gag order that prevents him speaking with news media for a year.

Shayana Kadidal, an attorney with the Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundred of Guantanamo detainees, said the provisions appeared aimed at preventing abuse allegations from emerging and politically damaging the Bush administration.

"If Mr. Hicks' treatment was not illegal, he should be allowed to describe it so the world can judge for itself," said Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Obviously he is a really dangerous terrorist.

So dangerous to the Bush Administration that they have to gag him.

/Bevin

[Nan]

He needs to be gagged at least until after the Federal election here at the end of the year. It was amazing how the government got really interested in his case, after ignoring him for years, when it became obvious that the general public were most unimpressed at the masterly inactivity with which they had approached the problem - especially as Tony Blair managed to get all the British citizens out ot Gitmo quite some time ago.

I do not think anyone really thinks what he did was right - but they have been disgusted at the treatment he has received, and the lack of a fair trial.

[Dr. Shane]

President Clinton pardoned some pretty bad terrorists his last day in office too. It is sickening to see some of these terrorists get off easy for political reasons. Imagine how the victims feel.

[Nan]

Shane, you obviously know little about this case. David Hicks did some training in Afghanistan, was not involved in any act of terrorsim, and was actually trying to leave when caught. I feel safe in making that statement as no charge of direct action was brought against him.

He was kept in a small cell mostly in solitary confinement for nearly 5 years without trial, lights on all the time, little exercise. He has not been pardoned. He entered a plea bargain agreement that included that he would not discuss his treatment. The original charges against him were dropped and a new charge had to be fashioned to include fit with what they had discovered against him.

Do I agree with what he did? No. Do I think that his treatment was entirely inappropriate. Yes. American citizens are specifically protected from the sort of 'trial' he was to face, but the Australian government decided not to protest in any way about the process for him. The British PM had interevened to get the Britons freed. It was only the thought of the impending election here, and the obvious discontent of the Australian public with the toadying action of Mr Howard and his ministers, that caused them to exert any pressure to speed up the process. And they have their reward that David Hicks will be inaccessible until after the next election here.

The cynicism many of us feel in this country has as much to do with our own policiticians as it has to do with what has happened overseas.

[Bravus]

Yes, it's amazing that so many people (in letters to the newspapers and so on) have missed the distinction that to say Hicks' treatment has been wrong, unjust and illegal is *not* the same as to condone his actions. Justice *must* be for those we disagree with too, or it stops being justice.

[Dr. Shane]

There were Adventists involved with the underground railroad which helped escaped slaves find their way to Canada and thus to freedom. Ellen White warned those Adventists that if they got caught, they needed to be prepared to accept the consequences.

I am unfamiliar with the Hicks' case. However he made a decision to go off and train with terrorists. He got caught. He had to deal with the consequences.

Why should have the prime minister of his country have gone to bat for him? He was not fighting in the Australian military and captured as a prisoner of war. Instead of anyone saying, shame on Mr. Howard, we should say, shame on Mr. Blair. If someone wants to leave their nation, go off into the mountains and join some terrorist group that kills unarmed citizens, including women and children, I see no reason whatsoever that their home nation should come and rescue them when they get caught.

If it is all over for Mr. Hicks now he ought to count himself lucky. Five years in a POW camp isn't bad for being involved with a group that has killed thousands of unarmed, innocent men, women and children. I hope he has learned his lesson.

[lazarus]

Adel Hamad grew up in a small village in Sudan. Through hard work, he became a schoolteacher and hospital assistant. To support his family he took a better job at a community hospital in Afghanistan. Then late one night he was torn from his bed and sent to hell, as Guantanamo Bay Detainee #940.

Adel Hamad has had no trial. He has seen no family members for four years. Even US military officers reviewing his situation have called his detention "unconscionable." But he and nearly 400 other prisoners are still trapped at Guantanamo. Last week US Defense Secretary Robert Gates finally said Guantanamo should be closed. President Bush's advisors are split down the middle on this issue -- a massive global outcry could tip the balance, and push Bush to close Guantanamo forever. Click below to sign the Close Guantanamo petition, and we'll run ads next week in major US papers announcing the number of signatures:

http://www.avaaz.org/en/close_guantanamo

It's now clear that many of the detainees are simply innocent people caught in the wrong place at the wrong time. Guantanamo's former commander General Jay Hood has admitted, "Sometimes we just didn't get the right folks." This is what happens when people are held without charge or trial.

After being held for five years, last week Australian David Hicks was finally charged -- and sentenced to just 9 months in an Australian prison. This hardly looks like the "worst of the worst" - words the Bush Administration used to justify ignoring basic standards of justice. Meanwhile, as regimes around the world use Guantanamo to excuse their own human rights abuses, international law keeps taking a beating.

Sign the petition calling on the US government to close Guantanamo , and for its inmates to be tried in a legitimate court or set free. Let's run ads in Washington DC and show that citizens from every country on earth want this injustice to end:

[Dr. Shane]

Wasn't the Adventist Eric missionary Hare taken captive by the Japanese during WW2? I believe that there are innocents that get taken POW in most every war. I doubt this one is any different. However, in David Hicks case, we know he wasn't an innocent bystander just working in a hospital to feed his family.

[bevin]

Hicks was not - but he was apparently not a star terrorist either

The US acknowleges that other people in Gitmo were doing precisely nothing wrong, but got caught in a sweep, or were deliberately framed.

[bevin]

ps: Did the Japanese make Hare kneel in the hot sun wearing a gas mask and regularly sleep deprive him and beat him during intensive interrogations?

[Nan]

ps: Did the Japanese make Hare kneel in the hot sun wearing a gas mask and regularly sleep deprive him and beat him during intensive interrogations?

And also make him sign a gag order prohibiting from telling of what he had suffered?

[Bravus]

The point, again, is not to say that Hicks is a good guy or was acting in good ways. It is that he was denied the basics of justice in any civilised society by being imprisoned for years without being charged with any offence, then charged with an offence that did not exist at the time he committed it, in addition to the mistreatment during his imprisonment. Protection for his rights is protection for all of our rights. I would have absolutely no problem with him being arrested, charged and imprisoned, for 5 years or 15, for what he was doing, and don't condone what he was doing. The problem is the illegal and unjust way in which he was imprisoned, without the right of habeus corpus, council, being charged in a reasonable time, seeing the charges against him...

[Dr. Shane]

The problem is that we are in undefined territory. We are in a war against international terrorism. We are not fighting a foreign nation nor domestic crime. Prior to this conflict, there was no set of rules made for this type of war.

If the detainees were treated according to the Geneva convention, the only thing they could be asked is their name, rank and serial number. That would be it. Nothing more. While criminals have the right to remain silent, police can interrogate them. That is, ask them questions, with or without their lawyer depending on the circumstance.

So the treatment of a terrorist POW lies somewhere between the rights of a POW belonging to a military of a foreign state and a domestic criminal arrested for a crime. Congress defined what is and isn't allowed in 2005 >>> Congress Approves Ban on Torture, Inhuman Treatment of Detainees <<<

[Bravus]

By 2005 David Hicks had already been imprisoned and being mistreated for a couple of years.

[Dr. Shane]

Which makes the point that when he was originally imprisoned, there were no rules for such imprisonment.

[bevin]

Quote:

So the treatment of a terrorist POW lies somewhere between the rights of a POW belonging to a military of a foreign state and a domestic criminal arrested for a crime.

But NEITHER is allowed to be treated like the Bush administration has been treating the Gitmo detainees.

What the Bush administration is doing is extremely stupid because (a) it does not get to the truth, ( it creates lots more enemies, © it alienates countries and people that were previously our friends, and (d) sets a precedent for how foreign powers are allowed to treat any American's they perceive might be a threat to their country.

It fails the "would I like it if they did it to me" test.

/Bevin

[Dr. Shane]

Yes indeed, a precedent has been set how other countries can treat Americans that become involved with international terrorist organizations. That is fine with me. I see no reason America should go to bat for Americans that join international terrorist organizations. As far as I am concerned, they should burn their passport if they are going to join terrorist organizations that target unarmed, innocent civilians in order to make their political or religious statements.

Of course a lot of information has been gained from the interrogations that has prevented further attacks and saved thousand, perhaps even millions of lives - that is if a nuclear attack was prevented. We, of course, will never know until we reach heaven's gates because such things are not released to the press. But as the 2006 transatlantic aircraft plot revealed, the terrorists are still trying to get us and interrogation or prisoners prevents them from being successful.

[Bravus]

Hmm - but what about the countries that consider the American military itself an international terrorist organization?

[Gerr]

The problem is that we are in undefined territory.

That may be true with a non-Christian, but since we do have a president who claims to be a Christian, he should know that that is NOT undefined or uncharted territory. To be imprisoned without charge or trial is unconscionably unchristian or uncivilized!

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

what about the countries that consider the American military itself an international terrorist organization?

Those must be countries that didn't sign on to the Geneva Convention.

The UN defines terrorism as any act "intended to cause death or serious bodily harm to civilians or non-combatants with the purpose of intimidating a population or compelling a government or an international organization to do or abstain from doing any act." Of course, that would mean the Allied Forces during WW2 were terrorists so I guess that term needs to be refined to exclude uniformed members of a state-sponsored military.

Of course the Geneva Convention protects uniformed members belonging to state-sponsored militaries so obviously any nation that would consider the US military to be a terrorist organization would not be a participant in the treaty.

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

That may be true with a non-Christian, but since we do have a president who claims to be a Christian...

So every time a 'Christian' politician makes a political decision we disagree with, are we to draw into question their faith?

How dare God save that warmonger Nebuchadnezzar!!!

It wasn't enough for him to take POWs, he had to cut off their testicles too. I wonder if Hicks would have liked to change places with Daniel.

I certainly do not envy the President's position. From all the reports, there are more Bible studies and prayer meetings going on in this White House than anyone can remember from previous Administrations.

[lazarus]

I certainly do not envy the President's position. From all the reports, there are more Bible studies and prayer meetings going on in this White House than anyone can remember from previous Administrations.

I think there is a text "by their fruits you shall know them".

I've known church leaders who wouldn't miss a Bible study or prayer meeting but are lousy leaders.

[Gerr]

Bear in mind that Nebuchadnezzar was not a saved person until he was "chopped down," its branches "cut off," and its "leaves stripped off" driven off his throne & spent seven years, ate "grass like oxen," & "wet with the dew of heaven."

I am not saying Bush is not a saved person, he may very well be. But I'm begining to wonder what book he is reading, or what a spin he & his colleagues are putting on what the Book says.

Gerry

[lazarus]

Bear in mind that Nebuchadnezzar was not a saved person until he was "chopped down," its branches "cut off," and its "leaves stripped off" driven off his throne & spent seven years, ate "grass like oxen," & "wet with the dew of heaven."

Gerry

Gerry, It kinda seems like we have some of that happening with this administration. I think its stunning how the fortunes of this crowd have changed.

I don't necessarily believe that God is actively against the Bush admin but that they may be just reaping the harvest of what they have sown.

[Dr. Shane]

Not only is God not against Bush, the evidence is that he gained office both times through an act of God! To begin with, he won the electoral vote, not the popular vote and even that he won by about 500 votes in Florida. "Act of God" is written all over that. Then, with the war being unpopular and his approval ratings under 50% he became the first President ever to have won the electoral and lost the popular vote to be re-elected. "Act of God" in bold letters and big fonts is written all over that. Either he is one lucky guy or God was involved and most Christians don't believe in luck.

As of lately, the Iranian hostages have been released without incident and there word from the battle field that the surge is working. Sounds like things are headed in the right direction.

Of course Nebuchadnezzar was not saved when he invaded Jeresalum but I was always led to believe he became saved after the three Hebrew worthies were saved from the firey furnace. Of course his life afterwards wasn't without sin, neither was King David's, King Solomon's, Samson's and many others. The vast majority of critics of President Bush's faith make themselves into grand hypocrites as they expect Bush to conform, in every detail, to what their belief of a Christian is while if they looked in the mirror they would find they themselves are failing to live up to the same standard. The fact that Nebuchadnezzar needed to be chopped down is not evidence that he wasn't saved prior to that, rather it is evidence that he was loved by God. "As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten" (Rev. 3:19)