Hicks to Serve 9 Months in Custody
The New York Times reports that Australian David Hicks has to serve nine (additional) months in custody. Nine months… That’s, as the NYT’s William Glaberson notes is “remarkable for a detainee who, before the plea negotiations, had faced a potential life term.”
Furthermore, he is “is to be returned to Australia within 60 days to serve the balance of the sentence there.”
So, what did, as Jeralyn notes, Hicks have to give up?
The deal included a statement by Mr. Hicks that he “has never been illegally treated� while a captive, despite claims of beatings he had made in the past. It also included a promise not to pursue suits over the treatment he received while in detention and “not to communicate in any way with the media� for a year.
As Jeralyn comments, one could argue that “the fact that the military forced him to make those concessions is in itself suspect.”
I have said it before: the way the U.S. is treating terrorism suspects is hurting the Global War on Terrorism.
11 Responses to “Hicks to Serve 9 Months in Custody”
This case, as well as the skeptical reaction to the “confession” of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, demonstrates clearly the foolishness of flirting with torture. We’re letting Hicks go so that he won’t rat us out publicly for events at Guantanamo, and no one alive believes KSM’s confession was accurate. Our credibility is severely degraded and these murderous scumbags actually manage to excite some sympathy.
This won’t be the end of it. There will be more cases where we compromise on justice in order to cover our own tracks. I wonder if these prisoners aren’t doing almost as much damage to American power and prestige as detainees as they did as active terrorists. An utterly unecessary self-inflicted wound.
Jihadi the Hutt
Mark Coultan
Sydney Morning Herald
“I have said it before: the way the U.S. is treating terrorism suspects is hurting the Global War on Terrorism.”
You are not the only one. In fact, as I like to point out, every US intellience agency has said the world is less safe thanks to the actions taken by the Bush administration.
Please take into account that many of these claims are false and were planned prior to interrogation.
“I have said it before: the way the U.S. is treating terrorism suspects is hurting the Global War on Terrorism.”
Michael:
You need to finish the thought. The reason that it is hurting the GWOT is because it is hypocritical (as in the case of Hicks) and profoundly extralegal (in the case of just about everyone else.)
I myself have said this before: The ultimate irony is that the GWOT is being fought to protect the very American values that the Bush administration has sought to destroy.
Please take into account that many of these claims are false and were planned prior to interrogation.
Right.
That’s why a condition of the deal was that Hicks can’t talk about his ‘interrogation.’
Holly, can you name one claim that’s been found to be false? Names, please.
I definitely agree with Michael and Shaun. If our government had stayed an example to other nations instead of pushing so hard to largely abandon the efforts in Afghanistan that were viewed as legitimate by almost everyone and producing instead scandals like Gitmo and Abu Ghraib the real war on terrorists would be proceeding much better.
Unfortunately, we can no longer take that for granted. We know that the U.S. has engaged in torture. In fact, we know that it was the policy of this government to engage in torture. The U.S. now has no credibility on this point. David Hicks may be the worst villian to ever emerge from Australia, but we’ll always have reasonable doubts because of the foolish way this has been handled.
This plea deal was a bargain for his silence, not his cooperation, nor his good behavior.
I agree with Jim, Shaun and mvdg- we not only have lost moral authority through our excesses, the confessed crimes of these people are suspect as well. The secrecy that shrouds these trials enables the world to think the worst of us, especially hearing about this dirty deal for Hicks.
This plea deal was a bargain for his silence, not his cooperation, nor his good behavior.
Which means we have a lot that needs to be covered up. Especially since the official policy is we do not torture. Where is John McKain now, who spoke out so forcefully on this issue? His continued silence in the face of the violations of the Geneva Conventions, is causing me to lose even more respect for him.
The problem is that we’ll never know if his claims are legitimate or not. It’s quite likely that some claims are at least exaggerated, but who can say with certainty when details aren’t release by the Bush administration and they’ve succeeded in destroying all their credibility on the subject.
I find it ironic the agreement allows him to keep silent for a year – he’ll be able to speak up just in time for 2008 elections.
I agree, this is the real problem- he could say anything and right now the rest of the world would probably believe him because of our tarnished reputation.