DUCKPOND

David Hick’s father as reported by ABC Online said that he pleaded guilty to get out of Guantanamo. That would appear to be the commonsense position adopted by most commenters that I have read at Road to Surfdom and Blogocracy. Aside from the legal opinion that the charge he faced was retrospective, there is a lower threshold for establishing quilt on the charge of providing material support for terrorists than there would be in a charge of conspiracy in a criminal court. As I understand them, both charges are considered “prosecutors charges” due to the difficulty of defending them. In all the circumstances, his legal advisers, or legal adviser, might well have suggested he take the course of least resistance.

As far as I know plea bargains do not form part of Australian legal practice, so I hope somebody somewhere will put the case for them. It hardly deserves comment that the Government’s position, as I recall, was that Hicks should face trial. Now it seems they are happy for him to driven to accept guilt on a retrospective charge, before a dubious tribunal with almost no chance of defending himself.

This outcome begs the question: Why was Hicks and the other internees at Guantanamo not given due process in a properly constituted, fair court, with proper regard to International Law, without extensive delays and mistreatment, if not torture? To those that have done such a things, and those that have abetted them, what must they be thinking? When you distill all the circumstances and decisions down to their essence, what is the purpose of this behavior other than to create an Orwellian state based on fear? To whom will this profit?

The conclusion following this path of thinking is that the terrorists reside in the White House as much as those in the caves in Pakistan or Afghanistan. So the questions then becomes is it logically valid and are its premises truthful by according with the facts?

Postscript:

It looks like Robert Merkel and the commenters at Larvatus Prodeo are addressing the legal issues, including my question about plea bargaining.

On 7 March the President of the Law Council was of the view that Hicks should be released without any involvement in the Guantanamo judicial process. He set out his concerns in a letter to Senators.