Hicks Pleads Guilty

[a_unique_person]

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/hicks-pleads-guilty/2007/03/27/1174761414531.html

BREAKING NEWS Australian David Hicks has pleaded guilty to a terrorism charge before a US military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay.
Hicks' military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, entered the plea on behalf of his client, who stood sombrely beside him during a rapidly convened hearing late this morning, Melbourne time.
He answered "Yes, sir,'' when the judge, Marine Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, asked if that was in fact his plea to a charge of providing material support for terrorism.

According to radio reports I heard, he was prepared to plead to anything as long as it meant he could get out of Guantanamo, against the advice of his legal team, who wanted him to plead not guilty.

 

[Mephisto]

According to radio reports I heard, he was prepared to plead to anything as long as it meant he could get out of Guantanamo, against the advice of his legal team, who wanted him to plead not guilty.

I wonder why he wanted out of Guantanamo so badly - it's not like they're torturing people there.

 

[gtc]

I wonder if he gets released, whether the Indians will want a little chat.

 

[The Fool]

I was expecting a guilty plea. There is probably little point in trying to plead not guilty to a charge bought down under a law that was written after the event specifically to ensure that what happened would break that law... The outcome was going to be guilty one way or another.

Hicks will be home and free before our next federal election...engineered by politicians because of the politics that drive the whole hicks circus.....but of course he is not a political prisoner.... But luckily it does appear that the voting public of australia are not prepared to throw away basic principles of justice and the rule of law....

 

[Mycroft]

Was it legal to provide material support to terrorists before?

 

[Schneibster]

I was expecting a guilty plea. There is probably little point in trying to plead not guilty to a charge bought down under a law that was written after the event specifically to ensure that what happened would break that law... The outcome was going to be guilty one way or another.

It's called an ex post facto law, and it's against our Constitution.

Hicks will be home and free before our next federal election...engineered by politicians because of the politics that drive the whole hicks circus.....but of course he is not a political prisoner.... But luckily it does appear that the voting public of australia are not prepared to throw away basic principles of justice and the rule of law....

Unfortunately it appears that the people who are running things over here are prepared to throw those things away since they don't have to pay for them. But there's starting to be some unrest; the voters are demanding to know what's going on, and it's kinda hard to tell 300 million people "no." It's just not healthy.

If I were a bettin' man, I'd say that my Imperious Leader is just about to be sorrier than a broke dick dog he got re-elected; he might have scraped by as a "good pResident" on a wartime record, but the next two years will make it clear that Something Has To Be Done and he'll be the luckiest man alive if he doesn't get impeached (and quite possibly the last man who started his term in the White House still employed at the end of it, if anybody else takes the fifth). He has tarnished our reputation and allowed thieves into everyone's retirement savings, and quite possibly stands to gain a fair bit himself (we'll see how that plays out- ever hear of the Carlyle Group?). How many smartass car salesmen who looked and talked just like that [rule8]hole have you bought cars from? Me, only one- and it was a long time ago. Then again, I learn quick.

 

[The Fool]

Was it legal to provide material support to terrorists before?

Possibly....
Thats one of the principles of a judicial process. If you want to test that out then find someone who did something, find the law that says what they did was illegal and charge them with it. Then, if you can establish that they are guilty of breaking that law you have your case won....unless a more senior authority chucks it out.

So if you can suggest a law he broke then please let the US army know because they are not having much luck so far. They have dropped all charges under laws that actually existed at the time for lack of evidence and wrote some laws while he was in Gitmo. These are the laws he has broken...the ones written while he was in Gitmo.

Do you support the concept of ex post facto law?

Maj Mori doesn't and its not very popular in your constitution either. Mori is not just fighting for Hicks....He's a marine and I doubt if he wants to see future tribunals, US or foreign, charging US marines with doing things that were made a crime after they did it....he's fighting to protect you and me from the same thing too.

 

[gumboot]

Providing support to terrorism, and partaking in terrorism are both criminal acts under international law, as per resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

-Gumboot

 

[The Fool]

I wonder if he gets released, whether the Indians will want a little chat.

They are free to do so. I doubt if they would have any more success than the United states. I'm quite ignorant of Indian law...anyone know of any law Indian or International that the Indians could arrest and charge him with breaking? How would they arrest him? They could make representation to the Australian government and ask for him to be extradited to face charges but they would have to satisfy the requirements of Australian law to manage that. Maybe they would succeed maybe they wouldn't...Maybe they wouldn't bother trying because the outcome would be obvious to them.

 

[The Fool]

Providing support to terrorism, and partaking in terrorism are both criminal acts under international law, as per resolutions of the General Assembly of the United Nations.

-Gumboot

Why isn't he charged with breaking those laws?

 

[gumboot]

By the way...

The proceedure of charging someone for warcrimes that didn't exist prior to your capture is actually pretty standard.

In WW2 a number of principals of war were established, for example the Yamashita Standard.

It didn't end there, either. A further principal of command responsibility (the Medina Standard) was established to charge US Army Captain Ernest Medina in relation to the My Lai Massacre (he was found not guilty of all charges, but nonetheless the Medina Standard remains).

Indeed, were one to scan through the history of the laws of armed conflict, it is the NORM for war crimes to be established after the fact, and perpetrators to be convicted for crimes that were only created upon their imprisonment.

Nothing new here (even ignoring the fact that supporting terrorism has been a violation of international law for some time).

-Gumboot

 

[gumboot]

Why isn't he charged with breaking those laws?

§ 2339. Harboring or concealing terrorists

§ 2339A. Providing material support to terrorists

§ 2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign terrorist organizations

US Code Title 18, Chapter 113B - Terrorism

U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113b, Sections 2339, 2339a and 2339b were passed and enforceable on 26 October, 2001.

-Gumboot

 

[The Fool]

U.S. Code, Title 18, Chapter 113b, Sections 2339, 2339a and 2339b were passed and enforceable on 26 October, 2001.

-Gumboot

Why isn't he charged with breaking these laws?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Why isn't he charged with breaking these laws?

Do you know what he was charged with that he pled guilty to? Why, it is in the OP

plea to a charge of providing material support for terrorism

DR

 

[The Fool]

Do you know what he was charged with that he pled guilty to? Why, it is in the OP

plea to a charge of providing material support for terrorism

DR

I know what he was charged with and I know the law he was charged under. Can you help out by suggesting why he has not been charged under the laws gumboot mentions? I firmly believe that he broke the laws he is currently charged under....that indeed he did do something in the past that those laws now deems an offence under those laws.

what are your views on ex post facto laws?

 

[Darth Rotor]

I know what he was charged with and I know the law he was charged under. Can you help out by suggesting why he has not been charged under the laws gumboot mentions? I firmly believe that he broke the laws he is currently charged under....that indeed he did do something in the past that the law now deems an offence under those laws.

what are your views on ex post facto laws?

No idea on the "why?"

Are you certain he was captured before 21 October?

That detail escapes me, and thus I will defer comment on ex post facto laws, other than to point out that Schneibster is exactly right, they are unconstitutional.

The loophole being worked, as far as I can tell, is that the charged person isn't due the protections of a Citizen or resident alien due to not being American, and the "Gitmo as limbo" assertion. The latter has been shown over the past few years to be a loophole is of dubious merit at best, and is coming to be seen as a farcical manipulation of parsing "legality."

For some strange reason, prohibitions against ex post facto laws didn't stop the Nuremberg Trial from applying them, and the US being party to it.

DR

 

[The Fool]

No idea on the "why?"

Are you certain he was captured before 21 October?

That detail escapes me, and thus I will defer comment on ex post facto laws, other than to point out that Schneibster is exactly right, they are unconstitutional.

The loophole being worked, as far as I can tell, is that the charged person isn't due the protections of a Citizen or resident alien due to not being American, and the "Gitmo as limbo" assertion. The latter has been shown over the past few years to be a loophole is of dubious merit at best, and is coming to be seen as a farcical manipulation of parsing "legality."

For some strange reason, prohibitions against ex post facto laws didn't stop the Nuremberg Trial from applying them, and the US being party to it.

DR

You are quite correct that Hicks is not due the protections of a US citizen or resident alien...so he is also not due the obligations of a US citizen or resident alien. If he was a US citizen or US resident alien I would have nothing but support for the US applying US laws to him.......but if using that law is impossible due to the laws not applying I find it difficult to call not putting your hands up to them a "loophole".

 

[Darth Rotor]

You are quite correct that Hicks is not due the protections of a US citizen or resident alien...so he is also not due the obligations of a US citizen or resident alien. If he was a US citizen or US resident alien I would have nothing but support for the US applying US laws to him.......but if using that law is impossible due to the laws not applying I find it difficult to call not putting your hands up to them a "loophole".

Fool, the whole premise for putting the prison/detention facility in Gitmo is a loophole exploit attempt. Had those folks been on US soil in the US, a whole new set of rules applies. That is why Gitmo was chosen, as well as its remote location.

DR

 

[The Fool]

Fool, the whole premise for putting the prison/detention facility in Gitmo is a loophole exploit attempt. Had those folks been on US soil in the US, a whole new set of rules applies. That is why Gitmo was chosen, as well as its remote location.

DR

I agree... That is one of the reasons I think that the outcome will be a deal cut to see the word "guilty" in there in exchange for releasing Hicks from Gitmo. I just cannot see that not being a part of any end to this ongoing circus.

When hicks gets back to Australia the Australian government will get the problem back where it belongs. In the Australian legal system.

He can't be imprisoned under our laws because there is insufficient evidence for any reasonable chance of a guilty verdict under any of them. But if he arrives with a guilty verdict from this US tribunal then the Australian government has an oportunity to use some of our own recent control laws...David will be told a whole list of things he is not allowed to do....one of them will be that he cannot phone Osama. I kid you not. We do that here, we tell people they can't phone osama....not all of us apparently, seems I could give him a call if I had his number but not people who have been banned from doing so under one of our more humerous new laws.

We could also just keep him in prison because america asks us nicely....but it appears that the voting public are sick of what is happening and our politicians have notice that so I don't think that will happen either...well, maybe a couple of months as a compromise? Its a political circus..... but......he is apparently not a political prisoner even though his ongoing detention and future detention appears to be being decided on a political level.

 

[rikzilla]

I was expecting a guilty plea. There is probably little point in trying to plead not guilty to a charge bought down under a law that was written after the event specifically to ensure that what happened would break that law... The outcome was going to be guilty one way or another.

Hicks will be home and free before our next federal election...engineered by politicians because of the politics that drive the whole hicks circus.....but of course he is not a political prisoner.... But luckily it does appear that the voting public of australia are not prepared to throw away basic principles of justice and the rule of law....

Yes, but were you expecting him to be so bloody chubby? I know, they must be torturing him with pie.....

He looked in reasonable health, although, as his father Terry said, he looked puffy.

He was unrecognisable from old photographs of him, although the extra weight has made him resemble his father.

Link

-z