Former PM Malcolm Fraser in an op-ed piece in The Age this morning:
"In his defence of his government's behaviour in having imprisoned David Hicks for five years without trial, the US ambassador was reported in The Age yesterday as saying that Hicks is ideologically ruthless, a fanatic, who would kill Australians and Americans without blinking an eye.
The ambassador went on to argue that, because of the war on terror, it was fair enough to keep Hicks in jail while that war continued. This would mean keeping him in jail forever because, as defined by President George Bush, the war on terror will never end. It is also making a total mockery of the trial process.
The ambassador also said that challenges to the military commission process protected the "pedigree" of America's democratic processes in getting the law right. Today that surely means in American terms establishing a commission that will provide a guilty verdict. How can it be otherwise? From the President to the ambassador, Americans have said that Hicks is guilty, get the law right, make sure he is convicted. That is not a fair trial, that is not justice.
Britain's Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, only the other day again emphasised the barbarity of the Guantanamo Bay military commission process. The longer it goes on, the more we learn, the more we must be totally bewildered, dismayed at the way in which the Australian Government has responded to these circumstances."
Meanwhile, the other day the Law Council of Australia released this Statement in relation to David Hicks:
"The fact that David Hicks is a step closer to facing a fundamentally flawed trial process is cause for grave concern and not comfort.
The Australian Government’s acquiescence in this legal fiasco should be deeply disturbing to all Australians.
Two of the offences that the Australian Government was previously more than happy for Hicks to stand trial for, have suddenly disappeared from the charge sheet.
Meanwhile, more than five years after being detained, an entirely new charge has been sworn against David Hicks, namely “providing material support for terrorism”.
Law Council President Tim Bugg, said “No doubt, even though this new offence isn’t recognized under the law of war and even though it is being applied to David Hicks retrospectively, the Australian Government will be satisfied once again that the process is entirely fair and above board.”
“This whole sorry saga is the result of political expediency in both the US and Australia and justice has been the casualty,” Mr Bugg concluded."
"In his defence of his government's behaviour in having imprisoned David Hicks for five years without trial, the US ambassador was reported in The Age yesterday as saying that Hicks is ideologically ruthless, a fanatic, who would kill Australians and Americans without blinking an eye.
The ambassador went on to argue that, because of the war on terror, it was fair enough to keep Hicks in jail while that war continued. This would mean keeping him in jail forever because, as defined by President George Bush, the war on terror will never end. It is also making a total mockery of the trial process.
The ambassador also said that challenges to the military commission process protected the "pedigree" of America's democratic processes in getting the law right. Today that surely means in American terms establishing a commission that will provide a guilty verdict. How can it be otherwise? From the President to the ambassador, Americans have said that Hicks is guilty, get the law right, make sure he is convicted. That is not a fair trial, that is not justice.
Britain's Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, only the other day again emphasised the barbarity of the Guantanamo Bay military commission process. The longer it goes on, the more we learn, the more we must be totally bewildered, dismayed at the way in which the Australian Government has responded to these circumstances."
Meanwhile, the other day the Law Council of Australia released this Statement in relation to David Hicks:
"The fact that David Hicks is a step closer to facing a fundamentally flawed trial process is cause for grave concern and not comfort.
The Australian Government’s acquiescence in this legal fiasco should be deeply disturbing to all Australians.
Two of the offences that the Australian Government was previously more than happy for Hicks to stand trial for, have suddenly disappeared from the charge sheet.
Meanwhile, more than five years after being detained, an entirely new charge has been sworn against David Hicks, namely “providing material support for terrorism”.
Law Council President Tim Bugg, said “No doubt, even though this new offence isn’t recognized under the law of war and even though it is being applied to David Hicks retrospectively, the Australian Government will be satisfied once again that the process is entirely fair and above board.”
“This whole sorry saga is the result of political expediency in both the US and Australia and justice has been the casualty,” Mr Bugg concluded."
Comments