Guilty

The first Gitmo detainee has faced the military commission on 'terrorism' charges. Australian David Hicks pleaded guilty to 'providing material support for terrorism'. A charge that is retrospective; that is, the commission thought it up after Hicks was captured in Afghanistan.

Hicks has spent five years in detention without charge.

This whole issue has been... well, fraudulent is the most polite term I can come up with. No other Western nation would hold a prisoner for so long without charge and the Americans would be first in line to condemn such an action. (You'll recall that America is not a signatory to the International Court because it would mean its' citizens were subject to international law - particularly, soldiers. Can't have that can we.)

On one side of the argument is the declaration of war; under that, any 'enemy combatants' are actually prisoners of war and not subject to 'charges' unless they involve crimes against humanity. Unfortunately, if you take up that argument, any detainees would be prisoners until the War on Terror is over; who knows when that will be?

On the other side is the determination to wipe out terrorism - an admirable objective, yet doomed to failure because at any time, anywhere in the world, someone is perpetrating terror on someone else.

Worse, these detainees have no rights under the American Constitution and that has led to an abuse of human rights - the length of detainment, the issue of solitary confinement (in which Hicks spent most of his five years). No rights under the U.S. constitution does not mean these people have no rights at all. Charge them, or set them free.

It seems to me the delays in the 'trials' has been due to lawyers and the government trying to come up with a process acceptable to everyone and vaguely legal. Not going to happen.

What's happened to Hicks is that he's pleaded guilty because he's had enough of the bullshit. He would take any chance to come home to Australia. In my view, he's probably guilty: wrong place, wrong time, wrong side; and should be punished. Then again, he's been punished enough, and the deal he made could be a form of balance.

He's spent five years behind bars; the American military don't know what to do with him, so a plan might have been formulated to redress the imbalance: you accept the five years plus a little extra and we'll let you go home. No admission of wrong-doing by the Americans and Hicks comes home.

I shudder to think what would have happened if Hicks was proven not guilty. That's now a moot point.

America is taking a beating on this issue and it's time to come up with a United Nations sanctioned commission, rather than a poorly organised, poorly executed military kangaroo court.

I wonder what the odds are on all the detainees being 'proven' guilty?