Friday, March 30, 2007

The Talking Dog on Hicks, the Military Commissions and the Origins of "Kangaroo Justice" (a re-post):

Back when I interviewed him in '05, Josh Dratel [one of the two disqualified Hicks lawyers] said he felt the term kangaroo court (when representing an Australian before one!) was too corny... but it's not, of course. Fake justice and preordained outcomes weren't unique to colonial Australia, but somehow, the name "kangaroo courts" actually derives, like the fake justice Hicks is receiving, from the UNITED STATES-- to wit, it is a term used to "try" claim jumpers in good old Wild West gold rush era California... So... I daresay, with those auspicious AMERICAN origins, "kangaroo court" remains a most fair thing to call it.

Frankly, Hicks likely prefers the comparative normality of even a maximum security Australian prison (which he will doubtless not serve a full sentence in if he serves in one all, given what an utter albatross around the Howard government's neck his case represents)... rather than stay any longer down the legal rathole of GTMO than otherwise necessary.

I guess it's time for COl. Davis to trot out OBL's auto mechanic (Hamdan), or perhaps the 15 year old kid (Khadr), or one of the other avatars of evil for yet another try at a show trial, given how successful the Hicks thing has proven...

--the talking dog

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Hicks was just sentenced TO NINE MONTHS! Of course, he agreed to a statement that said he wasn't abused, and that he won't sue the U.S. government... he might as well have also taken responsibility for sinking the U.S.S. Cole, the Maine, the Titanic, the Lusitania, the Andrea Dorea and the Exxon Valdez while he was at it. Not a bad deal for Hicks, in the end, because Congress would almost certainly have passed a special law exempting the government from suit if he brought such a suit, and even if not, some federal judge somewhere would have found a reason to deny liability in such a suit anyway...

Under GTMO's bizarre non-rule rules, Hicks could serve the 9 months, still be deemed dangerous, and held there... forever. What HE needs is to get himself transferred to Australia, which now has what it needs legally to immediately release him to his family (with ongoing surveillance and abuse, and removal of his passport, like Mamdouh Habib, of course), so the Howard government can stop taking its lumps for its complicity in Hicks' detention.

And thus goes the saga of the worst of the worst... the one GTMO man SO BAD that he was charged FIRST...

Anonymous said...

That last comment was by me...--

the talking dog

Anonymous said...

No person shall be ... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....

I lost track somewhere after high school civics. The above from Amendment V of the Constitution is a limit on the authority of the government of the United States. David Hicks is a person. He has certainly been deprived of liberty by the authority of the United States. My understanding of due process included prompt arraignment in a court of law, access to a lawyer, and the other Miranda rights. In all of this, Habeas Corpus was the mechanism to inquire formally of a court whether a person was being held properly (since courts cannot initiate action on their own).

How did we get to an exemption for non-citizens, someone held outside the United States, or someone charged with being an enemy in time of war?

Tony

tenthduf@yahoo.com said...

Hicks should never have been arrested. He should have been shot as a traitor and dumped in an afghan ditch - with the rest of the Taliban. If the islamic extremists win - Esq. Gorman would be shot as an infidel - defend that loser.

Trouble-maker said...

Presumably what distinguishes us from the terrorists is that we DON'T summarily execute people "and leave them in an Afghan ditch" as the poster above suggests.

Maybe he is a member of the Taliban?

Anonymous said...

Typical govt overreaching and abuse, particularly when it comes to GTMO. It doesn't matter, suspected "enemay combatant" or suspected lifer Navy JAG (LCDR Matthew Diaz), the govt will disregard as many laws as they can get away with in order to get their conviction. In the Diaz case, the govt used national security letters to get AOL emails between Diaz and his attorneys. They read some of the emails contained in a folder labeled privileged attorney client matters and are asking the military judge to let them read all the emails in this folder. It just doesn't matter when it comes to GTMO. The govt wants to create a perception that they are right when they couldn't be more wrong. I like the idea of inserting the requirement that GTMO be closed in the next round of defense funding.

aquabot said...

Does any of you believe the confessions of the prisoners from Guantánamo Bay after 5 years? They have no lawyer(s) or choice(s) of a trial to non-plead guilty. Either confess or spend the rest of your life in jail.
I do not believe their confessions are true. Do you believe the confessions of these prisoners? Why or Why Not?