SearchRecent comments
Democracy LinksMember's Off-site Blogs |
out of sight .....The Attorney General, The Hon Robert McClelland MP, Parliament House, CANBERRA. ACT. 2600. Dear Sir, Re: David Hicks I write to question the basis of your recent decision to approve an application being made by the Australian Federal Police for a Control Order over David Hicks upon his release from Yatala Prison later this month. I am one of many Australians who have strenuously fought for justice for David Hicks over the past 5 years. In doing so, I campaigned relentlessly against the Howard government because of its appalling cowardice & deceit in conspiring with the American government to illegally deny Mr Hicks his freedom & his rights. As you are aware, Mr Hicks has never been charged or convicted of any offence under Australian law. Mr Hicks finds himself in prison as a result of a conspiracy between the previous Australian government & the current American government, wherein he was found guilty of bogus offences under a process that, even those charged with its operation, have labelled corrupt & unjust. Along with hundreds of other innocent people, including children, Mr Hicks was held illegally as a prisoner by the American government at Guantanamo Bay, whilst denied his human & legal rights under International Law. Mr Hicks was subjected to torture during that time & his ‘guilty plea’ to the trumped-up charges levelled against him was extracted as a cruel & deliberate act of extortion. It is to the shame of the former Attorney-General & the Howard government that no protest was ever made to the American government over its treatment of Mr Hicks. In supporting the election of the Rudd Labor government, I expected to see the adoption of an honest & principled approach to the administration of justice in this country. As we are all aware, the shameless behaviour of the Howard government in so many instances certainly left room for a considerable improvement in that regard. Travesties of justice visited on David Hicks, Mamdouh Habib & Mohammed Haneef are only a few of the examples that come to mind. I am also at a loss to understand how your government can acquiesce to a request from the Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, Mr Mick Keelty, for permission to seek court approval for Control Orders in respect of Mr Hicks. Through his behaviour, Mr Keelty has shown himself not only to be completely incompetent, but fatally compromised through the politicisation of his position by the former Howard government. The Australian Federal Police benefited enormously in both financial & material terms under the Howard government, without once being able to demonstrate an improvement in the capabilities or performance. Indeed, their ineptitude is legendary, rendering that ‘service’ at best an embarrassing failure. Indeed, I am at a loss to understand how it is that Mr Keelty even retains his position as Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police, given that his performance has been so fatally compromised? Could you please explain how it is that, in a country that is allegedly democratic in nature & professes to uphold the principles of justice & the rule of law, a citizen not charged or convicted of any offence under its laws (indeed, according to the former government, Mr Hicks has never broken any Australian law) can be held in one of its prisons as a consequence of a deliberate plot to pervert the course of justice by his government & even then, facing the prospect of release, is to be subjected to further persecution by an incompetent & completely discredited police service, with the approval of your government? Where is the justice in that Mr McClelland? Instead of condoning action to further victimise Mr Hicks & so many others, your government would do better to launch a public enquiry into the administration of justice in this country by your predecessor over the past decade. Such an enquiry might just help restore some basic faith in our system of justice: a system that has been thoroughly discredited in the eyes of the Australian public. I await your early response to my questions. Sincerely, John Richardson.CC: The Hon Kevin Rudd
|
User login |
rudd takes the cowardly way out on Hicks control order …..
rudd takes the cowardly way out on Hicks control order …..
Greg Barns writes:
Some of us have long predicted that when it comes to using anti-terrorism laws for political purposes, the Rudd government would be no better than the Howard government.
It's early days but it looks as though that is the case. What other possible explanation could there be for newly minted Attorney-General Robert McClelland backing the Australian Federal Police’s move to impose a control order on former Guantanamo Bay detainee, David Hicks?
Mr Hicks is today a broken man, and he was probably always harmless. He was used as a political plaything of the Howard government for five years and when he returned to Australia, the South Australian Labor government’s chief head kicker (and apparently the man responsible for the stellar career of failed federal Labor candidate Nicole Cornes) Kevin Foley was ready with a kybosh to beat Mr Hicks around even more.
Let us remember that it is doubtful if David Hicks’ actually broke any anti-terror laws either here or in the US, despite his plea agreement with the US authorities. This is because the Guantanamo Bay regime of interrogation and detention is to put it simply, corrupt.
Over the past two weeks the CIA has admitted that it destroyed video tapes of interrogations of detainees, despite a US Federal Judge order in 2005 to "preserve and maintain all evidence and information regarding the torture, mistreatment, and abuse of detainees now at the United States Naval Base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba."
The severe restrictions on detainees’ access to legal advice has been criticised by a number of US courts, and its proposed method of trial has been thrown out by the US Supreme Court – a conservative-dominated body. Prisoners are shackled and kept in solitary confinement in many cases for up to 23 hours a day.
In other words, why would anyone believe anything other than that the only reason Mr Hicks struck a plea bargain that saw him serve his last few months of imprisonment in Adelaide was because he wanted to escape life in hell?
This is why a control order is unnecessary in David Hicks’ case. He is as about as likely to go near anything associated with terrorism as he is to fly to the moon at Christmas.
So why are Mr McClelland and the Rudd government letting it happen?
Because it’s good politics. This government, which supported the Howard government’s anti-terror laws when in Opposition, wants to be seen as tough on terrorism even if it means treading on a few individuals’ rights along the way.
The Rudd government seems to be conveniently forgetting that the reason John Howard cut a back room deal with US Vice-President Dick Cheney early this year to return David Hicks to Australia was because the Australian community thought Mr Hicks’ had suffered enough torture for one person.
If the Rudd government was seriously committed to human rights responsibilities then it would oppose efforts to shackle David Hicks with an order requiring him to be a captive in his own community.
What a pity it has taken the cowardly way out. Plus ca change…!