Σπάζοντας ειδήσεις | Φόρουμ | Βρετανικές ειδήσεις | ΑΜΕΡΙΚΑΝΙΚΕΣ ειδήσεις | Παγκόσμιες ειδήσεις | Πολιτικές ειδήσεις | Ειδήσεις sci-τεχνολογία | Ειδήσεις πολέμου & τρομοκρατίας | Αθλητικές ειδήσεις | Πολυμέσα | Καθορισμένη αρχική σελίδα

Τετάρτη, 23η Μαΐου 2007

Tim McCormack

Τώρα που είναι πίσω ο Δαβίδ Hicks στην Αυστραλία για να εξυπηρετήσει έξω το υπόλοιπο της πρότασής του σε Yatala, είναι κατάλληλο να απεικονίσει στις επιπτώσεις «της δοκιμής του» για το μέλλον της διαδικασίας των αμερικανικών στρατιωτικής επιτροπών. Δεν είναι μια όμορφη εικόνα.

Μια από σημαντικές Michael Mori's επαναλαμβανόμενες κριτικές των προτεινόμενων αμερικανικών στρατιωτικών επιτροπών (Mark Η και ΙΙ) ήταν η πλήρης έλλειψη δικαστικής ανεξαρτησίας από το εκτελεστικό σκέλος της αμερικανικής κυβέρνησης. Χρησιμοποίησε επανειλημμένα μια cricketing αναλογία, που παρομοιάζει τη δοκιμαστική διαδικασία με το παράλογο σενάριο της διανομής με τον ανεξάρτητο επόπτη και της άδειας των σφαιριστών οι ίδιοι για να αποφασίσει εαν πρέπει να δηλωθούν οι σφαιριστές lbw έξω.

Αν και η έκβαση για το Δαβίδ Hicks είναι αδιαφιλονίκητα ευνοϊκότερη από θα μπορούσε να έχει αναμείνει, ο τρόπος με τον οποίο εκείνη η έκβαση επιτεύχθηκε αποτελεσμένος μια τρομερή μήνυση της στρατιωτικής της επιτροπής διαδικασίας. Οποιεσδήποτε προηγούμενες αμφιβολίες για το χαρακτηρισμό Mori του εγγενώς πολιτικού χαρακτήρα της διαδικασίας εξαλείφθηκαν κατά τη διάρκεια των πρακτικών στον κόλπο του Γκουαντανάμο.

Καθ' όλη τη διάρκεια της εβδομάδας της «δοκιμής», βεβαιωθήκαμε επανειλημμένα από τις αμερικανικές στρατιωτικές αρχές ότι βεβαιώναμε μια «δίκαιη και διαφανή διαδικασία». Η διαφανέστερη πραγματικότητα για με ήταν η παντελής αδιαφάνεια ουσιαστικά όλων των ζητημάτων της ουσίας - που επιλύθηκε δεδομένου ότι ήταν εξωτερική όψη το δικαστήριο και πέρα από τη δημόσια διερεύνηση (ειδάλλως συνολικά από την ευκολία της ένοχης αίτησης). Η προδικάσιμη συμφωνία συζητήθηκε στην Ουάσιγκτον προτού να αρχίσει ακόμη και η δίκη και εκείνες οι διαπραγματεύσεις απέκλεισαν και το δικαστή συνεδρίασης και τη συνέχιση.

Παρά εκείνο το γεγονός, η δίκη άρχισε σαν δεν υπεάρξε καμία τέτοια συμφωνία και, ακόμα και αφού αποκαλύφθηκε η ύπαρξη της συμφωνίας, η δίκη προχώρησε σαν η συμφωνία δεν υπεάρξε.

Το ενιαίο παράδειγμα λάμψης της διαδικαστικής έλλειψης σχέσεως περιέλαβε την κριτική επιτροπή 10 ανώτερων υπαλλήλων που προήλθαν από τον αμερικανικό στρατό, το ναυτικό, την Πολεμική Αεροπορία και τα ναυτικά και που πέταξαν στον κόλπο του Γκουαντανάμο στα αεροσκάφη του αμυντικού γραμματέα. Οι ανώτεροι υπάλληλοι, της τάξης του συνταγματάρχη ή του αντίτιμου, έλαβαν τις οδηγίες από το δικαστή ότι θα μπορούσαν να απονείμουν μια μέγιστη πρόταση επτά ετών για τη δαπάνη της παροχής της υλικής υποστήριξης σε μια τρομοκρατική οργάνωση. The jury listened to impassioned pleas from the prosecutor for the maximum sentence and from the defence for leniency.

They retired for two hours and returned to deliver the maximum sentence. Only after their role had concluded and they were excused from the court did they discover that their determination was utterly irrelevant to the actual sentence Hicks will serve. What must they have thought when they discovered that their efforts were superfluous?

So much of what transpired in the courtroom seemed to constitute an elaborate charade — an absurd pretence of fairness and transparency in the face of a blatant political fix. At the final news conference the prosecutor, Colonel Mo Davis, could only explain the incongruity of his repeated assertions that Hicks deserved a 20-year sentence but only got nine months by conceding that “I did not negotiate this deal” and it was done by Mori “over my head” in Washington.

This transparent lack of transparency exposed two governments desperate to get the case resolved and off the agenda and prepared to accept an extraordinarily short term of imprisonment for one of the “worst of the worst” of the world’s terrorists.

One non-government organisation representative observing the trial contrasted to the media at the end of the process the party line that “David Hicks is a serious threat to our way of life and when the facts finally come out folks will understand why he is such a dangerous person” with the reality that he received a sentence equivalent to a drunk-driver who hasn’t hurt anyone.

The pre-trial agreement meant that the US Government could avoid any scrutiny of the actual evidence it had against Hicks and the manner in which it was obtained. The agreement also obviated the need for the judge to deal with the potentially serious defence motion on prosecutorial misconduct by Davis in the public suggestions that Mori may have violated the US Code of Military Justice by arguing against the fairness of the commission process.

But the conveniences of a pre-trial agreement could not obscure the fact that the content of the agreement and the way it was negotiated confirmed the inherently political character of the military commission process and the potentially irreparable damage to the rule of law in persisting with it.

The Bush Administration is intending to spend $US150 million ($A181 million) to construct a new, state-of-the-art courtroom facility at Guantanamo Bay exclusively for future trials by military commissions.

The Hicks case quite possibly provided the strongest imaginable ammunition for those in the US who want to terminate the military commission process immediately.

If the building project goes ahead, the edifice will stand as a monument to a perversion of the long and admirable tradition in the US of commitment to justice and the rule of law.

So much of what transpired in the courtroom seemed to constitute an elaborate charade — an absurd pretence of fairness and transparency in the face of a blatant political fix. At the final news conference the prosecutor, Colonel Mo Davis, could only explain the incongruity of his repeated assertions that Hicks deserved a 20-year sentence but only got nine months by conceding that “I did not negotiate this deal” and it was done by Mori “over my head” in Washington.

This transparent lack of transparency exposed two governments desperate to get the case resolved and off the agenda and prepared to accept an extraordinarily short term of imprisonment for one of the “worst of the worst” of the world’s terrorists.

One non-government organisation representative observing the trial contrasted to the media at the end of the process the party line that “David Hicks is a serious threat to our way of life and when the facts finally come out folks will understand why he is such a dangerous person” with the reality that he received a sentence equivalent to a drunk-driver who hasn’t hurt anyone.

The pre-trial agreement meant that the US Government could avoid any scrutiny of the actual evidence it had against Hicks and the manner in which it was obtained. The agreement also obviated the need for the judge to deal with the potentially serious defence motion on prosecutorial misconduct by Davis in the public suggestions that Mori may have violated the US Code of Military Justice by arguing against the fairness of the commission process.

But the conveniences of a pre-trial agreement could not obscure the fact that the content of the agreement and the way it was negotiated confirmed the inherently political character of the military commission process and the potentially irreparable damage to the rule of law in persisting with it.

The Bush Administration is intending to spend $US150 million ($A181 million) to construct a new, state-of-the-art courtroom facility at Guantanamo Bay exclusively for future trials by military commissions.

The Hicks case quite possibly provided the strongest imaginable ammunition for those in the US who want to terminate the military commission process immediately.

If the building project goes ahead, the edifice will stand as a monument to a perversion of the long and admirable tradition in the US of commitment to justice and the rule of law.

Tim McCormack is the Australian Red Cross professor of international humanitarian law at the Melbourne Law School. He attended the proceedings against David Hicks in Cuba in March as an adviser to the defence team on law-of-war issues.

See More: 

Have Your Say: David Hicks’ trial was a political fix by two governments
Please note, only selected comments will be published.

Or discuss this report in our new forums

RSS TrackBack URL

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

This entry was posted on Wednesday, May 23rd, 2007 at 10:41 pm and is filed under Breaking News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Loading ...

ADVERTISEMENTS

SITE MAPS

7/7 Afghanistan Alternative Energy Art BBC Big Brother Bilderberg Biometrics Bush CIA Climate Change Cover Up Cults Culture Database State David Hicks David Ray Griffin Democrats Demos Drugs Education EU False Flag FBI Fraud Free Speech Freemasons G8 Globalization Guantanamo Health News History ID Cards Internet Iran Iraq Israel Law Marches MI5 MI6 Microsoft Military MoD Money Music NASA Neocons NSA Oil Pakistan Podcast Police State Propaganda RFID RINF Rumsfeld Science Secrecy Security Slavery Space Sports Spying Stephen Lendman Technology Terrorism Tony Blair Torture TV UK News UN USA News Video Voting Warfare White House Wolfowitz World News Yahoo
2003 - 2005 Archives | 2005 - 2007 Archives | 2007 - 2008 Archives | Current Archives | Past Version