David Hicks finally free

When David Hicks pled guilty to terrorism charges in a US military court, he knew that he'd be released to Australia. This was probably the only thing about which he could have been certain. Though freed from inhumane treatment at Guantanamo, he nevertheless had to serve out his sentence. Immediately on arrival in South Australia, he was placed in solitary detention in a maximum security prison. Later, he was released from prison though subject to a control order. In Hicks case, the control order limited where he lived, who he associated with, the phone he used and the hours he was allowed out - restraints that surely represented significantly more freedom than his last six/seven years but which nevertheless still offended some jurists.

Yesterday, Hicks appeared to the public for the first time. He thanked members of GetUp for their support. Though not yet ready to say more about his experience, he asked them to continue supporting him including by opposing any extention of his control order. Whether this, or just the political need to move on, was the cause Hicks got his wish. As of 21 December 2008, the control order expires and will not be renewed.

It's not clear what, if any, restrictions will be placed on Hicks in addition to those that would apply to anyone convicted of a serious offence. His situation is unique. Whether he should ever have been tried will be the subject of debate for many years. I'm inclined to think he shouldn't have been for many of the reasons noted here and here. As I've said previously, Hicks was clearly a foolish and dangerous man. A man who was certain to find himself at war, in prison or dead had he not been detained. However, what Hicks might have done, how he might have breached then non-existent laws, how he might have taken up arms against his own citizens - these unrealised offences don't come near to justifying his treatment.

Lots of people and organisations can be proud of their efforts and support for Hicks. It mightn't have been popular, easy or clear-cut, but for all of Hicks' failings, the defence of him was a defence of us all. Perhaps David Hicks' military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, said it best in his interview with Andrew Denton:

With David Hicks, no-one is saying David actually did anything wrong or hurt anybody, just he was on the wrong side. When you say he's accused of being on the other side, so because he was on the other side we can go ahead and take away those fundamental rights and protections that we give to our murderers and our child molesters and our rapists, and to our corrupt politicians. They get it. Why doesn't David Hicks rate the basic fundamental human values that we give everyone? If he's violated the law and you try him in a fair system, fine. They don't want to give him that fair shake, unfortunately because I think his case has become political and the politics of it don't want to - the first Military ommissions can't be acquittals. They couldn't afford that.

Sins of the son

"...for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth of them that hate me."

I wonder if the reverse is true? Are the sins of the son visited on their fathers? I'm sure all parents retain a sense of responsibility for their kids long after they're old enough to buy houses, start business, live and work abroad. I wonder then, how Terry Hicks feels about his son's misdeeds?

I know little of Hicks early life. Wikipedia tells us he struggled as a teenager, possibly because his parent's marriage broke up when he was ten, but equally likely not. My own parents split when I was 13, not significantly older than Hicks, and my failings are most certainly disconnected from that event. Regardless, Terry must struggle with the fact that his son is, whatever else, very misguided.

Is it any different from the parents of any other person with a criminal record. Frankly, yes. Though we'll not know if Hicks committed murder, it is likely people died, if not at his hands, then at the hands of his compatriots.

Terry's only ever argued that David's been ill-treated by the US military commission. He's never claimed his son's innocence. I get the impression Terry Hicks has never, and will never, understand his son's actions, but he has remained committed to his son despite the circumstances and despite being up against not only the US government, but also his own. At least Schapelle Corby's parents had some support in their endeavours.

Terry Hicks seems like a decent man to me. He's very much the Aussie battler Howard claims to represent. He has been through hell over at least the last five years, and if David Hicks can't sell his book, I'll sure as hell buy his father's.

Hicks is back...

... in Australia to serve the remaining 9 months of his sentence. He'll return to a public life, of sorts, not long after the federal election, likely to be in November, however his case will certainly be a factor during the election.

As I've said previously, I'm not at all sympathetic to those who see Hicks as exclusively a maytr. He was, almost certainly, a mercenary. However, I'm entirely unconvinced by the case against him and no more convinced by his guilty plea - afterall some of the actions he admitted where not crimes at the time he apparently committed them.

What significance his return has on the election is unclear - Howard may hope to have somewhat diffused the impact by having him back but this could backfire. Rudd won't be camping out in Adelaide, but the Greens and some Dems will and Howard will still have to defend at least one or two of his various positions...

The Hicks who'll have the biggest influence on this year's election is not David, it's his eminently belieavable and reasonable father, Terry.

The case for and against David Hicks

SBS has posted the highlights from the Insight debate regarding the detention of David Hicks (a full transcript is here). This debate includes both prosecuting and defense counsel, as well as his family and the Australian AG, Ruddock. Watching Terry Hicks struggle to calmly respond to the mock concern of Ruddock is quite something.

The Australian government has grossly misjudged this situation.

Over at RoadtoSurfdom there's an excellent summary and analysis of the debate.

Hicks home "regardless" of trial outcome

Various media are quoting government sources as saying Hicks will be home by the end of the year apparently regardless of the outcome of his upcoming trial. This remarkable turnaround is both good news and an indictment on the Howard government.

Howard's initial attitude to Hicks was to declare him guilty by geographical association. He repeatedly declared Hicks a terrorist (Costello too, as recently as yesterday), deserving of his inhumane incarceration, despite Hicks having never been tried. In the last twelve months, Howard's battlers have become increasingly sympathetic to Hicks' plight if not his case, causing Howard to soften his position slightly. Recently, he made the claim that he could have had Hicks bought home at any point if he'd wanted but didn't think it appropriate (despite the fact that the UK did).

Now that he's finally realised Hicks will hurt him at the polls, Howard's trying to minimise the damage by saying he'll be bought home regardless of the verdict in the sham-trial that will soon begin. I bet that won't be until after the election - Hicks presence in Australia as either a free man or as a prisoner would severely damage the Liberals electoral prospects.

Rationing toilet paper: damnation without relief

DFAT confirms that David Hicks access to toilet paper is restricted to 30 sheets at a time. If it wasn't so obscene, it'd be funny - in fact, I'm sure Rowan Atkinson had a gag about there being no toilets in hell because, as the Bible says, it's "damnation without relief".

This is my son David Hicks

GetUp is an independent, progressive, political movement.

Their latest campaign is focused on getting David Hicks a fair trial. With their support, this ad, is screening in Australia.

Hicks appalling detention is shaping as a major issue in the coming federal election, I only hope there's more enlighted than reactionary voters?

David Hicks: Australian alone

The media have carried two stories in two days about the prolonged, and likely unjust, incarceration of David Hicks. I hope this signifies the (re)start of pressure on the Government to take action to defend the rights of its citizens.

The first story is based on comments by former Prime Minister Malcolm Fraser, a critic of Howard, that Hicks had been "totally deserted by the Australian government". Fraser also doubts the validity of evidence against Hicks given the likelihood it was extracted through torture - both the US and Australian governments have denied Hicks has been tortured but this denial requires us to accept as legitimate treatment such as waterboarding.

The second story covers comments by Australia's new director of military prosecutions, Brigadier Lynette McDade (background here). McDade simply states the maxim that justice delayed is justice denied:

"It is too long. Nobody should be held without trial in custody for that long, nobody, and if we did that you can imagine the hue and cry."