Hicks pleads guilty

[Proud Pies]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/hicks-pleads-guilty/2007/03/27/1174761414531.html

(also www.news.com.au)

March 27, 2007 - 11:25AM

Australian David Hicks has pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge before a US military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.

Hicks' military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, entered the plea on behalf of his client, who stood sombrely beside him during a rapidly convened hearing late this morning, Melbourne time.

He answered "Yes, sir,'' when the judge, Marine Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, asked if that was in fact his plea to a charge of providing material support for terrorism.

The judge ordered the prosecutors and defence lawyers to draw up a plea agreement spelling out what sentence he will serve by 6am (AEST) tomorrow.

However, US military prosecutors are expected to outline the Australian's likely sentence at a press conference later today.

The chief prosecutor for the military commissions has said that a 20-year sentence would be "reasonable''. The maximum penalty for the charge is life behind bars, but Hicks is likely to receive a lighter sentence, possibly taking into account the five years he has already spent in custody.

A prisoner exchange agreement between Australia and the US means Hicks will be allowed to serve out any remaining prison time in Australia, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said today.

But Prime Minister John Howard today refused to be drawn on whether Hicks could serve part of any sentence under a control order, which would allow him to live in the community but with restrictions on travel and who he could contact.

Hicks has been held at the US-run prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since he was detained in Afghanistan allegedly fighting for the Taliban in December, 2001.

There had been growing speculation before today's hearings that Hicks was ready to strike a deal with his military prosecutors for a lighter sentence in return for a guilty plea.

The plea came after Colonel Kohlmann ordered a hurried reconvening of the commission, which followed a fiery three-and-a-half-hour hearing at which Hicks reserved his plea.

At the initial hearing, Hicks said he was "shocked" when Col. Kohlmann disqualified two of his legal counsellors, one of who accused the judge of making up the rules.

Hicks appeared at the hearings under tight security.

The 31-year-old is the first "war on terror'' detainee at the US-run prison to be tried under a new law that revived the tribunals after the US Supreme Court threw out the previous system created by an order from President George Bush.

He arrived in the chamber dressed in khaki prison garb and thongs, clean-shaven and with long hair. He was escorted by two uniformed, unarmed soldiers but was not handcuffed or shackled.

What was supposed to be a routine procedural hearing turned into a tense confrontation when Col. Kohlmann said US civilian lawyer Joshua Dratel could only represent Hicks in the tribunal if he signed an agreement setting out the rules governing how the defence counsel could operate.

Mr Dratel refused, saying: "I can't sign a document that provides a blank cheque that draws on my ethical obligations as a lawyer.''

Mr Dratel said the tribunal system was making up rules as it went along, comparing it to the previous military commissions that were ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in June.

"These are the same problems that plagued the last commissions, that everything is ad-hoc,'' Mr Dratel said.

Hicks' other civilian lawyer, Rebecca Snyder, was told by the judge she would have to step aside, at least for the moment, until she changed her reserve status in the military.

"I'm shocked because I just lost another lawyer,'' Hicks told the judge.

Moments before, Hicks said he was satisfied with his defence team, but would ask at a later date for more defence lawyers.

"I'm hoping to have more lawyers and paralegals to get equality with the prosecution,'' Hicks told Col. Kohlmann.

He was also declined the offer of an interpreter but told the judge that the commission may have trouble understanding him, as he spoke "Australian English".

Adelaide-born Hicks allegedly underwent training at an al-Qaeda camp in Kandahar, southern Afghanistan and volunteered to fight alongside Taliban forces during the US-led invasion.

The charge sheet does not allege Hicks fired on US troops or attacked a US target, but says he conducted surveillance on the abandoned US embassy in Kabul and met Osama bin Laden as well as accused "shoe bomber'' Richard Reid.

Previous charges of attempted murder, conspiracy and aiding the enemy have been dropped, with defence lawyers saying the move shows US authorities have a weak case.

On the eve of the hearing, one of his lawyers said Hicks was considering a possible plea deal but declined to offer more details.

His time in detention, often in virtual isolation, has taken a toll, said his Australian lawyer David McLeod.

"Today he had dark, sunken eyes and he looked very tired,'' said McLeod, after meeting Hicks for more than three hours.

Hicks had been approaching today's hearing with "some degree of trepidation'', he added.

Today's hearing was watched by Hicks' father Terry and sister Stephanie, following a scheduled hour-long visit with Hicks before proceedings began.

Hicks has grown his hair long so he can reportedly shield his eyes from light in his cell to allow him to sleep.

He has alleged he was beaten during interrogations in Afghanistan and on US naval ships before he was taken to Guantanamo in 2002.

AFP

[stoliboy]

From Crikey:
http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070327-David-Hicks-guilt-by-incarceration.html

1. David Hicks: guilt by incarceration
Brett Solomon, Executive Director of GetUp! writes:

This morning came the news that David Hicks has pleaded guilty. We should not be surprised.

After the legal drama in his initial hearing today, David Hicks surely would have reflected on the fact that years after his initial plea of innocence, he was still locked in a cell 1.8m². Any normal Australian, facing a system weighted so heavily against them and broken by five years of unimaginable privation, is likely to have signed a document that would get them out of Guantanamo – regardless of their guilt or innocence.

David Hicks’ guilty plea is not justice served, nor does it necessarily reflect Hicks’ guilt – it is simply further evidence of a rank system, and Australians can smell it from afar.

Almost every eminent jurist and legal body in the country has condemned a tribunal that has more in common with a circus than justice. Australian and international jurists agree this system was designed to guarantee convictions. It should come as no surprise, then, that it has. It reflects a system that is no more than justice on the make – offending basic legal principles of independence and impartiality.

This is evidenced by the shenanigans at today’s arraignment. Hicks’ civilian lawyer was dismissed as he refused to sign a document that compromised his own ethical standards. It would also be highly unusual in any normal court for a counsel to question the presiding judge over their impartiality – as Major Mori had to, concerning Judge Kohlmann’s rulings.

This is what happens in a flawed system where the tribunal, the "jury", the chief prosecutor, the charges and the plea agreements are determined by the executive branch of government – the same Administration with so much invested in Hicks’ conviction.

The Federal Government should not think today’s guilty plea lets them off the hook. They have diminished Australia by legitimising an unfair system by allowing an Australian -- guilty or innocent -- to languish in detention for five years, only to face a severely compromised legal process.

When John Howard sifts through his mail this weekend he’ll find over 10,000 GetUp! postcards from residents of his own electorate angry at his disregard for basic Australian rights -- a sentiment they are likely to carry with them to the ballot box later this year.

The key question now is: will David Hicks be home by then and, of equal importance, under what conditions?

[PiesOnCollins]

Gee, what have they done to this guy, i wouldn't wanna walk a day in his shoes.

[eddiesmith]

Well dont become a terrorist and you wont have to

[PiesOnCollins]

You don't know what your talking about, what has he done to be "legally" termed a terrorist? and while your at it, define terrorist.

[London Dave]

[sherrife]

As if it were ever in doubt that the system was a sham.

[Simo]

grow up people, what do you think he was doing in Afghanistan, travellilng around and seeing the sights. i couldn't care less if he has to grow his hair long so he can get a better sleep, where is the mass media attention and sympathy for children in domestic violence situations and abused women who have no voice, where are their lawyers and advocates and spin doctors? i couldn't give a rats about him.