The reports in relation to the conviction of David Hicks refer to his "confession" and, in effect, his withdrawal of any allegations that he was tortured or abused. In addition, it has been said by the prosecutor that if Hicks did not genuinely acknowledge that he was tortured - and only made the admission to secure a release from Gitmo - he might be charged with perjury.
Whilst Australian Government ministers are already this morning slamming Hicks as the "worst of the worst", that the whole "trial" and conviction and sentence of Hicks has been a farce the last days is highlighted when one reads this in the NY Times [dealing with the Hicks matter]:
"In the telephone interview on Saturday from Adelaide, Mr. Hicks’s father said there were other aspects of the plea bargain that troubled him. It was clear to him, based on his last conversation with his son at Guantánamo last week, that he was pleading guilty in order to get out of detention there. “He told me he’d had it, he couldn’t take it any longer.”
Mr. Hicks also said he did not understand how his son could say he was not abused, noting that David had included descriptions of abusive treatment in an affidavit filed with a British court, in support of an application for citizenship.
Among the episodes recounted in the document was one that he said occurred before he arrived at Guantánamo. In a 10-hour interrogation, he said he was “hit in the back of the head with the butt of a rifle several times (hard enough to knock me over), slapped in the back of the head, kicked, stepped on, and spat on.”
How to reconcile all of this? Look out for the spin from Lord Downer of Baghdad and the rest of the increasingly pathetic and motley lot of Australian ministers, starting from the top with the PM.