The David Hicks Case Riles the Australians

By Michael Kraft

The dispute over David Hicks, the Australian one-time kangaroo skinner who pleaded guilty in Guantanamo today on charges of providing material support to Al Qaeda, is a good example of two friends looking at each other through the different ends of the telescope.

And it raises caution flags over how the unintended consequences of the U.S. Government’s treatment of terrorists suspects rounded up in Afghanistan can strain relationships with even our best allies.

I recently returned from Australia where I found that the Hicks case loomed large this year in the Australian consciousness and political scene, especially as the five year mark approached that Hicks was held without trial. It was a major topic of conversation and fuel for anti-American feeling and letters to the editors claiming that the U.S. ignored the principles of fair justice.

In downtown Melbourne, a large banner “Justice for David Hicks” draped a landmark church. Australian Prime Minister Howard, already under attack for his commitment of Australian military forces to Iraq and Afghanistan, was on the defensive for allegedly not doing enough for Hicks despite his close relationship with President Bush. Nearly half of the members of the Australian Parliament signed letters to the U.S. Congress on behalf of Hicks, 31-year old convert to Islam from a checkered personal background.
.
Hicks is believed the only Australian believed to be currently among the several hundred prisoners held in Guantanamo and the first terrorist suspect to face prosecution under the new Military Commission rules established by the Bush Administration after the Supreme Court ruled that the other procedures for dealing with captured terrorist suspects were unconstitutional.

He pleaded guilty Monday amid reports that he would go for a plea bargaining arrangement that would reduce his sentence and allow him to serve out his term in Australia.

According to press reports the judge ordered the prosecutors and defense lawyers to draw up a plea agreement, which is expected to spell out his sentence.There had been growing speculation before the commission hearing that Hicks may agree to a deal to plead guilty to a charge of providing material support to terrorism in exchange for a reduced sentence.

While the case has aroused Australian emotions and letters to the editor accusing the U.S. of acting arrogant, it has aroused relatively little attention in the United States. The claims by Hicks that he was abused and beaten while under custody, and the turmoil in the court today over who should be his lawyers, added fuel to the controversy Down Under.

It is another example of how issues, such as trade disputes over lamb or timber exports often loom large in the view of our close allies such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada but are virtually unknown to Americans. Their end of the telescope makes U.S. actions look large. We barely see the impact on our best friends.

This is not to pass judgment on the merits of the Hicks case. I do not profess to have any insights into the evidence that prompted the U.S. Government to detain and charge him. However some of my Australian friends, even those critical of the long detention, say that by going to Afghanistan and linking up with Al Qaeda, he was not on the typical innocent “walkabout” that many young Australians and New Zealanders undertake for a bit of overseas experience before settling down.

The length of the Hicks case, his lack of access to counsel of his choice and questions raised by holding prisoners for so long without a trial of any kind or constitutional protections was, however, an irritant in the usually good relations with one of our best allies. It is an example of how what is perceived as lack of due process hurts the U.S. image.

The fact that Hicks pleaded guilty, presumably for a lighter sentence, will not undo the damage with our best friends -- let alone our antagonists -- caused by the long delays in trials, accesses to lawyers, and developing a better procedure for dealing with terrorist suspects in the post-9/11 environment. It is another example of the difficulties caused by not thinking through the long term implications of the short term methods used in the “War on Terrorism.”

If there is any good outcome to this case, it will be if the legal community, the Executive Branch and Congress come together to develop better procedures – ones that are seen to be more fair -- than the existing civil or military processes used for dealing with terrorist suspects captured in a military situation.

TrackBack