First Conviction Out Of Guantanamo A Farce
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Foreign Policy, Law, The War On TerrorismThe title of Washington Post’s new story, “Australian’s Plea Deal Was Negotiated Without Prosecutors,” pretty much says it all.
However, let’s get into some details…
GUANTANAMO BAY, Cuba, March 31 — The plea deal that allows Australian David M. Hicks to leave the detention facility here with a nine-month sentence was negotiated between defense attorneys and the convening authority for military commissions without the knowledge of prosecutors, lawyers from both sides said.The deal shows that the politically appointed authority has the power to personally decide the fate of America’s most notorious terrorism suspects.
Excuse me United States, but could we get fries with that conviction?
Though Australian officials have said they were not directly involved in plea negotiations, Mori declined to answer questions about what, if any, influence they had. Australian Prime Minister John Howard, up for reelection this year, has been under public pressure to bring Hicks home. He turned to Vice President Cheney to implore that the case be resolved. Crawford was the Defense Department’s inspector general from 1989 to 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary.“What an amazing coincidence that, with an election in Australia by the end of the year, he gets nine months and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it,” said Australian lawyer Lex Lasry, who was in Cuba to monitor the case over the past week.
But that’s all it is. A mere coincidence. Politicians don’t ask favors from each other so they can attempt to sway elections. It just doesn’t happen. Ever.
Oh…wait…
As the deal developed in recent weeks, Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the lead prosecutor for military commissions, and his team on the Hicks case were not in the loop. Davis said he learned about the plea agreement Monday morning when the plea papers were presented to him, and he said the prosecution team was unaware that discussions had been taking place.“We got it before lunchtime, before the first session,” Davis said at a news conference Friday night. In an interview later, he said the approved sentence of nine months shocked him. “I wasn’t considering anything that didn’t have two digits,” he said, referring to a sentence of at least 10 years.
And by the way people…that fun little bit about him not being able to talk about the torture? We were only about to do that if we send him back to Australia. Why? Because it would violate the 1st Amendment.
So let’s check the scorecard here. Not only have we given our first convicted enemy combatant a laughably short sentence, but we also imposed a condition of the sentencing that would get laughed out of court here.
What is going on with our government that they think this make us look as if we’re serious about the WoT? Seriously.
This entry was posted on Sunday, April 1st, 2007 and is filed under Foreign Policy, Law, The War On Terrorism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:10 am
First of all, can we stop calling him “David Hicks?” His name is Mohammad Dawood. Period. No one would ever refer to the names Lew Alcindor, Cassius Clay, or Cat Stevens anymore.
The only reason people still call him David Hicks is because the lawyers want to portray him as an innocent, good ‘ol white-boy, and artificially dissociate him in every aspect from the radical, anti-semetic, militant form of Wahabbi Islam which he has whole-hartedly embraced.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:56 am
And to the actual points in the post? Do you have anything to say about our ridiculous non-conviction/political giveaway to the Australian government?
I know we don’t agree about much Jimmy, but you have to have something to say about how this was handled.
April 2nd, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I actually agree with you on this. If I disagree with you, you usually will hear it! =P
April 2nd, 2007 at 1:51 pm
Haha…well say so next time! :+D
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:42 pm
And the next witness before the House or Senate Judiciary Committee(s) is sure to be Ms. Howard. And her link with Tricky Dickie II should make things interesting…
And how do you hold someone for 4 1/2 years for a crime that had not been invented yet? Yet another hole in the Constitution…
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:15 pm
The cavalry riding over the hill to save John Howard…
The most interesting thing in this item is whether the Australian electorate will be taken in by the back-scratching and paw shaking between Bush and his pet pug.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
I would suggest reading Sec. 950B of the Miltary Commissions Act of 2006. The convening authority is granted sole discretion to not only over-ride the military tribunals sentence (although they can’t add to a sentence), but they can SET ASIDE A FINDING OF GUILTY.
It makes good sense to give the convening authority a wide degree of latitude and flexibility if one believes that national security interests & strategy may be a factor in the disposition of any given case. Just off the top of my head, a case in which an enemy combatant is willing to become a U.S. agent. It really is not that difficult to come up with a whole-bunch of senerios in the WoT.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/PL-109-366.pdf