Harold Hark,
Assassin
Harold Hark, |
Letters to the dailies on David Hicks The Age Your front-page lead story, "Britain blasts US over terror trials" (The Age, 9/7), had me searching the fine print for any sign of an Australian Government response. There it was, predictably: "We believe the process will be fair and transparent" (spokesman for Alexander Downer). Who are the democratically elected Australian Government members willing to speak out when the Government betrays us all in denying its fundamental responsibility to seek to safeguard the human rights of all its citizens - and when will we all speak up, as Australians, and demand this? How can Alexander Downer say "We believe the process will be fair and transparent" when David Hicks will have no right to confer privately with his lawyers? Does Mr Downer also say that the High Court is wrong in declaring that, "In this country, legal professional privilege is more than a mere rule of evidence; it is a substantive general principle that plays an important role in the effective and efficient administration of justice..." (1997) 71 ALJR 327. If David Hicks were being held by Zimbabwe, Nigeria or North Korea, Messrs Howard, Williams and Downer would be jumping up and down and demanding his immediate release. But because he is being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, by the Americans, everything appears to be rosy. One mustn't upset President Bush! Give the British their due: they may have fought alongside the Americans in Iraq, but at least they are standing up for the rights of their own citizens on this issue. Hicks has been disowned by Australia, and is now at the mercy of an American military tribunal and the US President. When Adolf Eichmann was tried in Jerusalem in 1961 for his role in the extermination of European Jewry by the Nazis, he was accorded the full rights of an accused person under the law of the state of Israel. The presiding judge, Moshe Landau, said that Eichmann's case would be conducted, like any other criminal case, in the light of the fundamental principle that "every man is deemed to be innocent and that his case must be tried only on the basis of the evidence brought before the court". What was granted to Eichmann in Jerusalem in 1961 will be denied to David Hicks in Guantanamo Bay in 2003. As an Australian citizen who was born, educated and lives in this country, I have travelled extensively and used to carry my Australian passport with pride, in the mistaken belief that if I was ever in trouble, or accused of a crime or an offence, I would be offered protection, under international conventions by being an Australian citizen, and offered a fair trail or hearing. Whether David Hicks is guilty or not, he has been offered no such protection - our politicians and leaders have shown contempt for our citizens and our passport. And the pathetic line that he will be dealt with "fairly" by this American military court is a joke. With due respect to the Attorney-General, he cannot possibly believe a trial of David Hicks by a US military commission could be in any way fair. What is proposed? No jury; not even a judge independent of the prosecution. The trial would be by military officers under the control and subject to the orders of their army superiors. In other words, the prosecutors and fact-finders would be indistinguishable, all subject to the executive orders of their commander in chief. Such a parody of a trial was abandoned by Australia's first colony in 1839. The officers comprising such a tribunal would not be constrained by traditional rules of evidence recognised by courts of law. The process descends into unpleasant farce when one considers that Hicks could be retained in his present custody even if acquitted. His lawyers would be unable to communicate with him without the prosecutors eavesdropping and recording every word. If convicted he would have no appeal to an independent court. If Daryl Williams really believes what he says, I fear for our nation's future. Twice inside a week, Mr Howard has expressed his satisfaction with the US military court trial of David Hicks. Well, the British and German governments aren't. US lawyers aren't. Amnesty International isn't. US Human Rights Watch isn't. The US colonel doing the defending isn't. Obviously they know less than John Howard. When are we Australians going to realise that those eyebrows are the wool George Bush has pulled over John Howard's eyes. Wake up Australia. According to John Howard, the as-yet-unproven statement that David Hicks "was trained by al-Qa'ida" means that he forgoes all his rights as an Australian citizen and that Howard abrogates all his responsibilities as Prime Minister. Perhaps Howard should check with his erstwhile allies in the UK. At least they understand what their duties are in respect to British citizens at Guantanamo Bay. Why wasn't David Hicks charged with some crime when he returned from fighting with the Muslims in Kosovo? What is the difference between then and now? Howard has gone further than abandoning David Hicks. He has sold out all of us with his subservience to the policies and interests of the US. Well, Peter Costello, here is the perfect opportunity for you to speak out on matters of conscience. You did promise, after all. The British Foreign Office minister Chris Mullin has expressed "strong reservations" about the two British nationals being tried before a secretive military court in the United States ("Britain gives Washington a whacking over secret terror trials", Herald, July 9). He pointed out that Britain was "fundamentally opposed" to capital punishment. There were hints that the Geneva Conventions were being contravened. There was vigorous debate in the House of Commons. John Howard rejects any suggestion that David Hicks will have an unfair trial. No concern at the possibility of the death penalty, the lack of legal representation or even the propriety of his detention. So, Mr Costello, go ahead and differentiate yourself from John Howard. Bring a few Liberals along with you. Experience in Britain shows that you can. I find it amazing that the legal profession is so quiet on the issue of David Hicks. First, he is imprisoned without charge for nearly two years, denied access to a lawyer or his family, and now faces an unfair military tribunal. Where are the law societies, the law councils and, for that matter, the near-silent ALP? Regardless of his guilt or innocence, his legal rights are being trampled. This is a national disgrace and those with guardianship over the law need to take a stand urgently. I am appalled at the abdication by the Prime Minister of his obligation to protect the fundamental human rights of David Hicks, an Australian citizen. It matters not whether Hicks is innocent or guilty - he has a right to justice. To take part in this perversion of justice, to condone the US military trying Hicks in a kangaroo court, to deny him access to a fair trial, to stand by if he is executed by a tribunal with no legal standing under international law, is Mr Howard's lowest political act. How can we fight against the abuses of human rights around the world when we are complicit in such a gross abuse as that occurring in Guantanamo Bay? Civilisation is built on respecting human rights, not bully-boy tactics. This process degrades us all. Is a free-trade deal worth this level of moral prostitution? A test many of us would accept as to the fairness of a judicial process is: would you be happy if one of your family was subject to the said process? In the case of the tribunal proposed for the trial of David Hicks, the United States has resoundingly rejected the possibility of any of its sons being brought before it. Presumably Mr Howard would be happy for the same tribunal to hear evidence and decide sentence on a member of his family. Or perhaps if it was a child of his in Guantanamo Bay the Australian Government would be making greater efforts. Either way, the willingness of the Australian Government to allow the rights of one of its own to be so trampled is impossible to explain to the proud and, dare I say, arrogant French. Hardly a day goes by without the American Lawyers Association pointing out the injustice of David Hicks's forthcoming trial. The Woomera lawyers are doing likewise for children in detention. Both are an infringement of basic human rights. Could somebody from the ALP besides Carmen Lawrence recognise this and stand up for decency? Simon Crean should understand that human rights are pivotal to an egalitarian society. |