Home | Business News | Browse by Publication | M | Melbourne Journal of International Law

David Hicks and the charade of Guantanamo Bay.

Article Excerpt
[Advocates of the desirability and efficacy of the United States military commissions as the preferred means to try detainees held in the global war on terror ought to have been disappointed by the inauguration of the trial process with David Hicks. Far from confirming the seniority (anal concomitant dangerous character) of Guantanamo Bay detainees, Hicks entered a guilty plea to the single count of providing material support to a terrorist organisation and negotiated an extremely lenient sentence of seven years with all but nine months suspended. Although the entering of a guilty plea proved convenient for both the Bush Administration and the Howard Government on multiple levels, David Hicks also exposed the thorough politicisation of the military commissions--the first of three fundamental injustices inherent in the system. Intriguingly, the military commission continued against David Hicks as if no pre-trial agreement existed in an absurd pretence of proper judicial process. The two additional fundamental injustices involve flaws in the rules of evidence and procedure and the illegal creation of offences not known in the law of war. The think piece concludes with a discussion of implications from this case for future military commissions.]



CONTENTS I Inaugurating the Military Commissions II First Fundamental Injustice: Politicisation of the Process III Second Fundamental Injustice: Lack of Procedural Fairness IV Third Fundamental Injustice: Illegality of the Subject Matter Jurisdiction A Murder of Protected Persons B Murder in Violation of the Law of War V Conveniences of the Guilty Plea VI Implications for Future Military Commissions

CHARADE

1. A written or (now usually) acted clue from which a syllable of a word or a complete word is to be guessed.... A game of guessing words from such clues.

2. An absurd pretence. (1)

I INAUGURATING THE MILITARY COMMISSIONS

One of the most intriguing aspects of the proceedings against David Hicks before the United States military commission in Guantanamo Bay was the rationale for selecting this particular case as the inaugural trial. A common immediate reaction was that this selection seemed inexplicable. (2) Given the extent of the criticism of the military commission process, within the US domestically, within many foreign countries and by multiple international organisations, those with a vested interest in promoting the impression of a credible trial process would surely have pushed for a different case with which to commence proceedings. At its strongest, the US case against David Hicks was that he was an al Qaeda foot soldier--that he trained with al Qaeda and prepared himself to head off to the frontline in Afghanistan to wage war against the US-led coalition forces in response to the military intervention post-11 September 2001. (3)

Despite having detained David Hicks for more than five years in Guantanamo Bay, the US was unable to adduce any evidence that David Hicks fired a single shot in anger--let alone any suggestion that he actually committed a war crime or even hurt a single person. The relentless blustering by Australian politicians and US military prosecutors that David Hicks was one of the most dangerous people in the world, (4) and the vitriol of the prosecutor in his address to the jury in Guantanamo--when he alleged that 'today, gentlemen,' (for all of them were men) 'you are on the frontline of the global war on terror and you sit here face to face with the enemy' thrusting his arm towards the accused while refusing to look in his general direction--proved to be utterly devoid of substance. In stark contrast, however, undoubtedly there are individuals detained by US authorities against whom there are extremely serious allegations with significantly more evidence to suggest that such individuals were real masterminds of major al Qaeda operations. The US has confirmed its detention of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (the alleged principal architect of the 11 September 2001 attacks), Abu Zubeida (allegedly a senior al Qaeda operational planner and potential future leader of al Qaeda), Abdul Rahman Hussain al-Nashiri (the alleged chief of al Qaeda operations in the Persian Gulf and alleged mastermind of the attack on the USS Cole) and Waleed Muhammed bin Attash (an alleged top al Qaeda operational commander). (5) Why not open the proceedings of the US military commissions with someone of real seniority in al Qaeda in order to make it more difficult for the critics of the process to argue against the rationale for a unique system to deal with an unprecedented situation?

The decision to start with David Hicks is, of course, explicable even if it was a strategic error. In my view, the explanation lies at the heart of the choice of title for this piece. David Hicks was selected because intense political pressure was finally brought to bear by an Australian Government desperate to remove the Hicks case from the Australian political landscape well before the upcoming federal election. (6) The fact that political influence resulted in a resolution of the case raised serious questions about the determination to proceed with the pretence of a proper process despite an obvious political fix. It is the second meaning of 'charade' as an absurd pretence that captures the essence of what occurred in Cuba in March 2007.

My intention here is to demonstrate the fundamental lack of justice inherent in the politicisation of the US military commission process. In a perverse irony, it is important to concede that David Hicks benefited from the lack of judicial independence of the commissions. The parents of John Walker Lindh, tried by US courts on the basis of his nationality, were right to query why their son is serving a 20 year prison sentence for offences similar to the offence to which David Hicks pleaded guilty while he is serving only nine months in prison. (7) The benefits to David Hicks do not remove the stain of injustice on the commissions themselves and any doubts about the lack of judicial independence prior to March 2007 are no longer tenable following this first case. I will also briefly discuss two other manifestations of inherent fundamental injustice in the commission process--the lack of procedural fairness and the illegality of some of the charges included within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commissions. These two latter injustices were not manifest in the proceedings against David Hicks because the negotiation of a pre-trial agreement conveniently precluded any testing of the actual evidence against David Hicks, the manner in which that evidence was acquired, and the illegality of the sole remaining charge against him. I am of the view, however, that it is important to make some observations in relation to those additional levels of injustice inherent in the current system. I will conclude this piece with some reflections on the implications for future military commission proceedings flowing from the inauguration of the process with the case against David Hicks.

II FIRST FUNDAMENTAL INJUSTICE: POLITICISATION OF THE PROCESS

A relentless refrain of Major Michael D Mori (8) throughout the entire duration of his professional involvement with David Hicks was the fundamental lack of independence of the military commissions from the executive arm of the US Government. (9) Major Mori repeatedly used a cricketing analogy to illustrate his criticism: political interference in the military commission process is the cricketing equivalent of dispensing with the umpire, leaving the bowler to make his or her own ruling on leg before wicket. (10) The obvious absurdity in the analogy--at least to anyone familiar with the game--was a highly effective way of making the point. One possible response was to laugh off the analogy as hyperbole with a sceptical refusal to accept that any lack of independence from the Bush Administration could really be equivalent to a bowler's self-adjudication. Any antecedent doubts about Major Mori's characterisation of the inherently political character of the process evaporated in the heat of Guantanamo Bay in the final week of March 2007.

Throughout the week of the 'trial', we were repeatedly assured by US military authorities that we were witnessing a 'fair and transparent process'. The most transparent reality for me was the utter opacity of virtually all issues of substance--resolved as they were outside the courtroom and beyond public scrutiny (or else avoided altogether by the convenience of the guilty plea). The truth is that Major Mori was able to go over the heads of both the presiding judge and the chief prosecutor to negotiate a pre-trial agreement (11) with the Convening Authority, Judge Susan Crawford. Major Moil could do so because The Manual for Military Commissions 2007 (12) allows an accused and the Convening Authority to enter into a pre-trial agreement. (13) The Convening Authority negotiated and approved the pre-trial agreement because the Bush Administration advised her to do so and that happened because Australian Prime Minister Howard personally intervened to demand that President Bush bring the Hicks case to an expeditious conclusion. (14)

On the afternoon of Saturday 24 March 2007, a large Australian and international media contingent, the prosecutors, the defence team and the military commission administrative staff all boarded a C-130 US military aircraft at the Andrews Air Force Base...

View this article FREE - Now for a Limited Time, try Goliath Business News
Free for 3 Days!