The SMH is reporting this morning on the wrap-up of the David Hicks "trial" - still not concluded at the time of writing this. It all seems rather too pat.
Most disturbing is this:
"He also agreed that he had "never been illegally treated by any persons in the control or custody of the United States".
Now, why would the Americans, and the Australian Government, have almost certainly insisted on this statement by Hicks? Will anyone really believe it, given that Hicks has alleged how he has been mistreated over the years - as has every other person taken into custody by the Americans.
Another dimension to the Hicks fiasco and disgrace is raised by Mike Carlton in his weekly column in the SMH:
"But a question hangs in the air. If Hicks is guilty of providing material support to terrorism, where does this leave those gun-toting executives of the wheat export monopoly AWB who so cheerfully shovelled $300 million of sanction-busting bribes into the coffers of the Saddam Hussein regime? Thanking their lucky stars, I imagine."
As Carlton reminds us - which makes the above statement by Hicks even more questionable:
"Naturally, this travesty has been greeted with smug triumphalism by the Howard Government and the toadying bloviators. It is so convenient. Hicks's guilty plea means he cannot now testify under oath to the brutality inflicted upon him in captivity, acts of violence and sadism which, he has said in written statements, included bashings, the forcible injection of drugs, constant sleep deprivation and, in one instance, the insertion of a plastic object into his anus."
PM Update: The SMH brings things up to date, including the "sentence" meted out to Hicks. As the piece says, it appears to all have been "designed" with an eye to the political scene in Australia. How cynical! Look to for Hicks' dad's comment about the "paper" the US wanted him to sign [see above].
Most disturbing is this:
"He also agreed that he had "never been illegally treated by any persons in the control or custody of the United States".
Now, why would the Americans, and the Australian Government, have almost certainly insisted on this statement by Hicks? Will anyone really believe it, given that Hicks has alleged how he has been mistreated over the years - as has every other person taken into custody by the Americans.
Another dimension to the Hicks fiasco and disgrace is raised by Mike Carlton in his weekly column in the SMH:
"But a question hangs in the air. If Hicks is guilty of providing material support to terrorism, where does this leave those gun-toting executives of the wheat export monopoly AWB who so cheerfully shovelled $300 million of sanction-busting bribes into the coffers of the Saddam Hussein regime? Thanking their lucky stars, I imagine."
As Carlton reminds us - which makes the above statement by Hicks even more questionable:
"Naturally, this travesty has been greeted with smug triumphalism by the Howard Government and the toadying bloviators. It is so convenient. Hicks's guilty plea means he cannot now testify under oath to the brutality inflicted upon him in captivity, acts of violence and sadism which, he has said in written statements, included bashings, the forcible injection of drugs, constant sleep deprivation and, in one instance, the insertion of a plastic object into his anus."
PM Update: The SMH brings things up to date, including the "sentence" meted out to Hicks. As the piece says, it appears to all have been "designed" with an eye to the political scene in Australia. How cynical! Look to for Hicks' dad's comment about the "paper" the US wanted him to sign [see above].
Comments