Struggling' Hicks not talking to dad

Penelope Debelle
December 20, 2006 - 1:00PM

David Hicks this morning twice refused to speak to his father Terry in a pre-arranged telephone call to the Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba where the Australian terror suspect is being held in solitary confinement, adding to concerns about his deteriorating mental state.

A tearful Terry Hicks said guards at the prison had tried to talk his son into speaking to him this morning, to no avail. "He just declined the call."

He said the guards tried twice within an hour to get Hicks, 31, to come to the phone, but he refused.

The phone call, set up over six weeks, was made from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade office in Adelaide to Washington, then put through to Guantanamo Bay.

His family had already been warned that he was unlikely to take the call.

Mr Hicks said his son was unable to communicate properly during their last telephone conversation in July this year.
-------------------------

Gus: Ratbag Johnnee, Chief Executive or Sadism Australia, blames his lawyer, Mr Mori, for challenging the US you're-guilty-no-matter-what military court system, otherwise Hicks would have been tried and hung long ago in accordance to Mr Ruddockdownerhoward's rule of the law-as-they-see-fit. Nothing to do with justice. 

‘A former Australian spy chief has denounced the detention of David Hicks and called for him to be brought home immediately.

Roger Holdich, a former inspector-general of Intelligence and Security, said the Australian's solitary confinement for five years without trial was "inhuman".

"Hicks's continuing incarceration, and our supine acceptance of it, does no one any good, not the Government, the nation and certainly not Hicks. He should be brought home at once," he said in a letter jointly signed by his wife Joy and published in today's Canberra Times.’

Return Hicks: Former Spy Chief

http://www.parliament.tas.gov.au/ha/hanote.htm

No. 32 TUESDAY, 13 MARCH 2007
(At 10.00 o clock a.m.)

Notices of Motion

242 The Attorney-General to move That the House:

(1) Notes the historic occasion of all State and Territory Attorneys-General signing the Fremantle Declaration in Western Australia in November 2006.

(2) Supports the content of the Declaration and commends the State and Territory Attorneys for affirming their commitment to important basic principles of justice.

(3) Commits itself to the same principles as outlined in the text of the following declaration:

“We, the Attorneys General of the governments of Australia, declare and affirm our commitment to the following principles:

1. the right to a fair trial;

2. the principle of habeas corpus;

3. the prohibition on indefinite detention without trial;

4. the prohibition on torture;

5. access to rights under the Geneva Conventions;

6. the separation of powers; and

7. the prohibition on the death penalty.

These are fundamental norms of the Australian legal system, and we, as Attorneys General, are responsible for ensuring that these principles are upheld in our jurisdiction.

Australia has signed and committed to international treaties and conventions in which these rights are protected: the Geneva Conventions, the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights, and the United Nations Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

We reaffirm our commitment to these international agreements and principles.

Signed by:

The Hon Bob Debus, New South Wales
The Hon Jim McGinty, West Australia
The Hon Michael Atkinson, South Australia
The Hon Syd Stirling, Northern Territory
Mr Simon Corbell, Australian Capital Territory
The Hon Kerry Shine, Queensland
The Hon Steven Kons, Tasmania".

(4) Recognises that the document was drafted following discussions at the meeting about the continued incarceration of Australian citizen David Hicks.

(5) Expresses its concern for the fact that Mr Hicks has been detained by US authorities for almost five years without being given a free and fair trial.

(6) Condemns Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock for his failure to ensure that this Australian citizen is given a fair trial.

(7) Recognises the significance of each State and Territory Attorney signing the document.

(8) Condemns Federal Attorney-General Philip Ruddock for refusing to sign the Declaration and calls on him to sign the document. (28 November 2006)

a group of pollies registered their displeasure with another group of pollies. group 'a' and group 'b' are different parties. the earth shakes?

what matters is, do the people of australia enter this matter? no, it's politics, and politics is a spectator sport in australia, and one not well supported because contests are rare compared to footy and cricket.

contrary to the logo of this site, democracy is a spector sport here. to be "active", is merely to cheer for this pollie star, and more often to decry that pollie demon. to be "active" is to be a groupie.

although the prison colony ethos still has a death grip on the national character, there are little flowers of political spring- "cir" pops up occassionally in the press, or discussions around the water cooler. the problem is, there isn't a lot of time to evolve to democracy.

declining resources and increasing population are going to result in a crash. a repressive dictatorship is the usual result. ozzies either get off their knees soon, or learn to say:" yes, sir." " may i have another sip of water, sir?

 

Hi al,

All the best for the season.

As I’ve confirmed previously, I support CIR, in particular because it would be a useful tool in the citizens’ armour against irresponsible & out of control government.

If I have a doubt about it at all, it’s for the same reason you’ve given in your latest post …. “DAVID HICKS? WHO HE?” …. our infamous aussie apathy. Even if we had CIR, would Australians care or participate any more than they already don’t? Would CIR simply become a device to be exploited by vocal & organised minorities, with the majority being put upon by just more further “self-interest” groups?

I find it interesting that you don’t seem to think that trying to rouse Australians from their apathy, even in the smallest of ways, is a worthwhile endeavour? What is the point / value of CIR in the face of such disinterest? Is it any more valid to promote CIR as a “panacea” for the ills of our democracy than it is to campaign on specific issues?

I agree with you that we have to get off our knees sooner rather than later, if we are not to wind-up in the same threatened police state condition that is presently overwhelming the US & Great Britain, in the name of keeping everyone “safe”.

And that brings me to your question about David Hicks ….

Yes, David Hicks is a fellow citizen: tortured & imprisoned without charge or trial by our alleged “special friend”, the US. Worse still, the cowards that make-up our government are complicit in these breaches of international law.

But, whilst Hicks is just one individual, he is, at the same time, all of us. If we don’t shout loud & long in the face of such injustices, whenever they are perpetrated by disgusting politicians of all hues & persuasions, then they can just as easily visited on any one of us.

If we get to that point, CIR won’t matter at all ….. nothing will.

‘The woman appointed the nation's first director of military prosecutions to the new Australian Military Court has described the treatment of David Hicks as abominable.

Brigadier Lyn McDade was made director of military prosecutions in July. She is a former Northern Territory deputy coroner with a defence force career spanning 23 years.

The establishment of her job was one of the key reforms made by the Federal Government to the military justice system following the damning 2005 Senate inquiry. It means for the first time the responsibility for determining whether to prosecute military personnel will be concentrated in the one office, and will be completely separate to the chain of command.

In her first interview as director, Brigadier McDade told the Herald her independence as the country's top military prosecutor was "something that I hold quite sacred".

Asked about the treatment of Mr Hicks, who has been held at Guantanamo Bay for more than five years and is not currently charged with any offences, she did not hesitate. "Abominable," she said. "Quite frankly, I think it's wrong. I don't care what he's done or alleged to have done. I think he's entitled to a trial and a fair one and he is entitled to be charged and dealt with as quickly as is possible. As is anybody."

As for the military tribunals the Americans have set up to deal with Mr Hicks, the Brigadier said: "Maybe they should have a good look at us."

Her comments follow remarks by the former prime minister Malcolm Fraser yesterday that the Australian Government had "totally deserted" Mr Hicks.

They also come as the Prime Minister, John Howard, was reported at the weekend as having shifted his rhetoric on Mr Hicks, with his remark that "the acceptability of him being kept in custody diminishes by the day".’

Top Brass Breaks Ranks On Hicks

meanwhile, in a cynical & hypocritical exercise in damage control, the Coward government promptly wheeled-out its head sheister, Darth Ruddock, to confirm that Brigadier McDade’s remarks "echoed the government's view".

This from an Attorney-General who has publicly defended the Bush administration’s use of torture & whose government has totally & utterly abrogated its responsibilities to secure & protect the human & legal rights of one of our citizens for more than 5 years …..

A government whose leader & ministers have repeatedly lied to the Australian people regarding David Hicks, claiming, amongst other things, that he was a member of al-Qaeda; had trained with al-Qaeda & is a terrorist ……

A government whose deceitful leader said that it was “fair” if Hicks was detained indefinitely ….

A government whose Attorney-General has said that Hicks was a terrorist; was guilty of committing dastardly acts & that it would be reasonable for Hicks to stay in detention indefinitely, even if he had been charged, found guilty & had served his sentence …..

A government whose Minister for Foreign Affairs claimed that Hicks had conspired to cause a war & to commit war crimes …..

A government that has consistently denied David Hicks the presumption of innocence …..

A government that has consistently lied about the proposed US Military Commissions: claiming that any trial conducted by the Commissions would be “fair”, notwithstanding that eminent legal authorities have confirmed that any such trial would not comply with article 3 of the Geneva Conventions & that were such a trial to be conducted, it would be in contravention of Australian law ….

A government that continues to falsely assert that David Hicks will be tried by the US Military Commission “soon”, notwithstanding the avowed intention of the now Democrat controlled US Congress to overturn the 2006 laws governing the proposed Military Commissions.

A government whose dishonesty & deceit knows no bounds & whose behaviour has consistently undermined respect for the rule of law …..

A government that now wants the electorate to think that it is concerned for David Hick’s welfare ….

A government whose every action makes me feel sick.

So thanks to Brigadier Lyn McDade for her honest & forthright remarks regarding David Hicks. If they are anything to go by, it would seem certain that the long overdue positive makeover planned for the military justice system will be successful.

Of course, given the Howard government’s outstanding success in debasing or destroying standards of governance in Australia over the past decade, many cynical citizens might believe that the proposed reforms are nothing more than a superficial exercise to paper-over some of the many deep cracks that have appeared in many of our institutions.

Whilst time will always tell, we must hope that Brigadier McDade & her colleagues will succeed in their worthy endeavours.

From our ABC

Hicks's mental health not assessed by doctor

It has been revealed that a public affairs officer with the US Embassy in Canberra, not a doctor, assessed the mental health of Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks.

Yesterday the Foreign Affairs Minister said he had received a report suggesting Mr Hicks was in good physical and mental health.

Hicks's lawyer David McLeod is furious that Alexander Downer has relied on a report from somebody not qualified to provide an assessment.

"This is what our Government is relying upon for reliable information about how one of its citizens is being dealt with overseas," he said.

"It's an absolutely outrage and it demonstrates the absolute callousness, indifference by this Government towards an Australian citizen."

The US embassy in Canberra says its staff member met Mr Hicks for five minutes and that the report was not meant to be a medical assessment.

----------------

Gus: one can imagine the conversation:

Non-expert: Mr Hicks are you okay?

Hicks: no...

Non-expert: okay, I'll put you down as a yes, you must be okay... 

Hicks: no...

Non-expert: Hey, I can see you're okay!

Hicks: no... I'm not

Non-expert: look, the guards tell me you're okay...

Hicks: they lie...

Non-expert: they wouldn't do that...

Hicks: yes... they...

Non-expert: see, you said yes... I''ll pen you down for a yes — you're okay...

Hicks: no...

Non-expert: please don't change your mind.

Hicks: I... I do not know anymore...

Non-expert (looking at his watch): see? You must be okay for knowing you don't know anymore... Anyway, got to run, got a plane to catch... so long!

Hicks (trying to move his leg irons): humph...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Director of Public Prosecutions has dropped a case against former Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks.

The DPP had argued the profits of his tell-all memoir were the proceeds of crime.

This morning the Supreme Court in Sydney has told the case has been dropped.

Hicks's book, titled Guantanamo: My Journey, was released earlier last year and covers everything from Hicks's life in Adelaide to his training with fundamentalist Islamic armed forces.

It also details his years locked up at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba and his conviction for supporting terrorism.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-24/dpp-drops-hicks-case/4150326?WT.svl=news1

from Crikey …..

Commonwealth drops Hicks action, damns plea deal that freed him

Crikey Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS, DAVID HICKS, GUANTANAMO BAY

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecution's decision to abandon its legal action under the Proceeds of Crime Act against David Hicks for the proceeds of his book has raised fundamental questions about the plea deal he agreed to and his treatment during his incarceration at Guantanamo Bay.

In a remarkable statement released a short time ago, the CDPP in effect declared it could not rely on evidence from the military commission that convicted Hicks following his plea agreement in 2007, or Hicks's admissions to the commission, and on that basis, "this office was not in a position to discharge the onus placed upon it to satisfy the court that the admissions should be relied upon and decided that these proceedings should not continue".

Let's go back to the deal a desperate Howard government struck with the Bush administration (said to have been negotiated directly with Dick Cheney) in 2007 to remove the internment without trial of Hicks as a political problem. Hicks was banned from speaking to the media for 12 months and from suing the US government for his treatment, and required to withdraw his claims that he'd been abused during his incarceration. On Hicks' return to Australia, then-Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock told Laurie Oakes "you can't profit under Australian law from talking about criminal acts in which you have been engaged and we would seek to ensure that he would not be able to profit from any story that he sought to tell."

Hicks has recounted that he was subjected to beatings before arriving at Guantanamo Bay and then subjected to an extended program of psychological torture while in captivity there, before agreeing to a deal to be returned to Australia. He has said he made the plea deal under duress and feared that he would never leave Guantanamo unless he accepted it.

Hicks's legal team wanted to use the prosecution to present evidence of the treatment Hicks experienced while at Guantanamo, including evidence from former guard Brandon Neely, who has recounted routine physical abuse of inmates and his own shame at their treatment.

The Commonwealth action against Hicks relied on his plea deal and the admissions made by Hicks as part of the deal. "The evidence available to my office was sufficient to commence those proceedings on the basis that Mr Hicks stood to benefit financially from the commercial exploitation of his notoriety resulting from the commission of a foreign indictable offence," the CDPP Christopher Craigie SC said in his statement. "The evidence included Mr Hicks’ plea of guilty before the United States Military Commission and admissions made by him before that Commission."

However, Craigie said, Hicks had challenged the admissibility of commission evidence "based upon the conditions and circumstances in which he made the relevant admissions. The challenge also relied upon the fact that Mr Hicks entered what is known in the United States as an “Alford plea”. This is a type of plea not recognised in Australia, whereby a defendant is able to acknowledge that the available evidence is sufficient to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, without admitting commission of the offences charged."

Hicks and his lawyers had also "served evidential material not previously available to the CDPP and AFP." By declining to proceed and implicitly acknowledging the problematic nature of Hicks' plea agreement, the CDPP has in effect delivered a telling blow against the Howard government's deal with the Bush administration and confirmed Hicks' claim that he made the agreement under duress.

"I'm pleased that they have finally looked closely at the evidence we filed in this case, and seem to have concluded for themselves that it showed that my so-called conviction at Guantanamo was unfair and was obtained through duress," Hicks said in a media statement today.

The decision is similar to the government's decision early last year to settle with Mamdouh Habib, who had sued the government for complicity in his torture in Egypt, Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. Habib has never been charged with any terrorism-related offence (News Ltd was forced to apologise on the weekend for saying so). The prime minister at the time declared that settling was "in the interests of taxpayers". Exactly which taxpayers, and what their position was under the Howard government, remains unclear.

Like Habib's claims of torture, Hicks' will now not be evaluated in independent, formal proceedings that might shed light on his treatment and the role of the Australian and US governments in it.

Hicks and his lawyers were told yesterday of the decision not to proceed, and the matter was finalised with costs in Hicks' favour this morning.