Former Guantanamo inmate set free

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/12/28/former-guantanamo-inmate-set-free/

Former Guantanamo inmate set free.

Australian David Hicks, “the first person convicted at an American war crimes trial since World War II was freed from prison on Saturday, after completing his U.S. imposed sentence.” Hicks spent five years in detention at Guantanamo Bay, followed by a nine month sentence in prison. “He was told to remain silent about any alleged abuse he suffered while in custody.”

Well, at least he's out and free. I wonder how much they fucked him up.

did their time. Kind of makes me wonder what they want hidden.

Wearing jeans and a green polo shirt, the 32-year-old walked from Adelaide's Yatala Prison at 8.17 (CDT) and was escorted to a waiting car, bypassing the waiting media pack that had been keeping a round-the-clock vigil.

A small crowd of mostly elderly supporters were outside the prison as Hicks left, many holding banners reading 'This could have been your son' and 'David Hicks is no threat'.

The supporters surrounded the car in which Terry Hicks and lawyer David McLeod left the prison, cheering as the car left the prison grounds.

(snip)
"As part of my conditions of release from Guantanamo Bay, I agreed not to speak to the media on a range of issues before March 30, 2008.

(snip)
Hicks said he recognised "the huge debt of gratitude that I owe the Australian public for getting me home''.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/i-wont-let-you-down/2007/12/29/1198778741695.html

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2007/04/horton-plea-bargain-hicks

One of the most astonishing aspects of the plea bargain is that it was not struck between Hicks' counsel and the prosecution—as would normally be the case—but with Susan J. Crawford, the senior status military appeals court judge who serves as "convening authority" for the case. Crawford is a protégé of Vice President Dick Cheney, a fact of considerable interest considering that Australian Prime Minister John Howard is known to have turned to Cheney in an effort to speed up the process and relieve pressure on him coming from the Hicks case in view of rapidly approaching elections.

Even without this latest tidbit, the Hicks case was extremely revealing of the operations of President Bush's new military commissions. The proceedings began in a tumult as the military judge ruled that two of Hicks' three defense counsel could not appear on his behalf. One, noted New York criminal defense lawyer Joshua Dratel, had agreed to abide by counsel rules issued up to that point, but would not agree to abide by rules that had not yet been issued. (Had he done so, in fact, he would have been breaching ethical duties.) Motions made by the defense were rejected without any apparent deliberation.

In the kabuki theater that surrounded the plea bargain, a sort of mock trial was convened. The opening argument of the prosecution seemed to be something out of Samuel P. Huntington's The Clash of Civilizations. Hicks was described as an “enemy who wanted to kill Americans” (whereas the convening authority had, prudently, denied the prosecution permission to bring exactly that charge for want of evidence).

The only evidence available against Hicks consisted of his own testimony and that of other Guantánamo inmates, all of which would have been subject to challenge on the grounds that it was coerced. Military procedure requires a court presented with a plea bargain to find that evidence establishing each element of the crime charged exists. Therefore implementing the plea bargain, Hicks stated that the testimony was not coerced and accepted it.



Torture of David Hicks

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200510/s1494779.htm
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2007/s1861197.htm