In Plea Deal, David Hicks Admits To Backing 9/11 Attacks, Withdraws Charges Of Gitmo Abuse

Sentenced To Seven Years For Meeting Osama Bin Laden And Fighting For The Taliban, For Two Hours

Back In Australia Within Weeks, Banned From Speaking To The Media For One Year


UPDATE : David Hicks' 7 Year Sentence Has Been Suspended.

Hicks will be transferred back to Australian within two weeks, and will serve nine months in an Australian prison.

Lawyers and politicians are claiming a "conspiracy" exists between the Howard government and the Bush government to remove the extremely controversial issue of David Hicks' treatment at Guantanamo Bay and why he was held for five years without trial, from the media agenda, as the Australian prime minister prepares for the coming federal election.

In even more remarkable news, claims have surfaced that Hicks' lawyers cut a special deal for the suspended sentence without the knowledge, or agreement, of the US military prosecutors, who were said to have been shocked when it was made public during last night's sentencing hearing that Hicks' would serve only nine months in an Australian prison, even though he admitted to training with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan after 9/11 and meeting with Osama Bin Laden.


Previously...

David Hicks has admitted that he did take the side of the Taliban in the Afghanistan War, weeks after the September 11, 2001 attacks, and that he did go to the front lines.

For two hours.

He then fled, catching a cab back to Pakistan. He was then captured by the Northern Alliance and sold for a bounty to American forces.

As part of his plea deal, which meant the US military prosecutors did not have to ultimately present evidence to back up their claims in a court, Hicks has admitted to a fleet of so-called terror-related charges. Lawyers have claimed that none of the claims made against him by the US Military prosecutors were crimes in Australia or the United States when Hicks first entered Guantanamo Bay in early 2002.

One of the more surprising bits of news some media are reporting from today's hearing is that Hicks has agreed to provide information on other alleged terrorists and will testify against them.
Presumably, Hicks has already given interrogators this information, sometime during the five years he spent in Guantanamo Bay.

Almost as interesting as the charges he said "Yes" to in last night's military tribunal were the charges Hicks denied, during the course of the plea agreement negotiations, which the prosecution were then forced to drop.

In exchange for dropping some charges and claims, the US Military prosecutors got their conviction and Hicks has been sentenced to seven years imprisonment, five years of which are expected to be considered as time already served in Guantanamo Bay.

Hicks will now be returned to Australia in less than 60 days, possibly as soon as next weekend, and will serve the remaining two years in a maximum security prison.

Hicks was asked by the US Military judge, Colonel Ralph Kohlmann, if it was true that he had "never been illegally treated by any persons in the control or custody of the United States" during his time in Guantanamo Bay. Hicks said, "Yes."

Hicks will now not be able to legally pursue charges against the US government or US Military for torture or illegal imprisonment after he is released from prison.

He has also been banned from speaking to the media for twelve months.

Under oath, Hicks admitted that he had trained with Al Qaeda, but the prosecution were forced to drop the reference "advanced" in reference to at least one training camp, that specialised in surveillance.

The prosecution were also forced to drop the allegation that Hicks had met Richard "Shoe bomber" Reid in a training camp run by Al Qaeda, and another claim that Hicks was near, or in the company of, John Walker Lindh on the front line of the Afghanistan war.

Here's what Hicks admitted to :

* He heard a talk given by Osama Bin Laden, in Arabic, while at a training camp, and he told Bin Laden that there was a lack of "materials" written in English.

* He attended at least three Al Qaeda training camps in January, April and late 2001.

* He saw the September 11, 2001, attacks on a television while staying with a friend in Pakistan, and he had approved of the attacks.

* He had returned to Afghanistan after the 9/11 terror attacks on the United States, but he did not admit to having had "advanced knowledge" that terrorists were going to hit New York City and Washington, DC..

* When the US-led coalition invaded Afghanistan in October, 2001, he volunteered to fight with Al Qeada to support the Taliban. Hicks guarded a tank near Kabul Airport and spent a total of two hours on the front lines of the war, near Konduz.

* After two hours on the front line, Hicks then fled to Pakistan after selling his gun for the taxi fare.

Not exactly a stunning win for the prosecution, particularly considering the enormous trouble the US Military had in getting he hearings underway, after years of legal challenges, and a declaration by the US Supreme Court last year that Gitmo military tribunals were unlawful.

Remarkably, the list of charges Hicks admitted to are almost identical to the story told by Hicks through his letters home to his family in the documentary 2004 documentary The President Vs David Hicks.

Hicks will go down in the history of the 'War on Terror' as being the first person to plead guilty and be charged with providing "material support to terrorism" at a Guantanamo Bay military tribunal, created to try detainees picked up during the course of the war.

The full detail of the sentence imposed on Hicks should be announced over the weekend.


Hicks Father Says His Son Has No Plan To Sell History - Agent Estimated Hicks Story Worth More Than $1 Million

US Government Has Its First Certified Tried 'WoT' Terrorist, But Questions On Hicks Treatment Will Still Be Questioned

Foreign Minister Says For Schapelle Corby's Sake, Hicks Should Not Challenge US Sentence Back In Australia

The Gitmo Diet : Fruit, Juice, Sporks And 5000 Calories A Day

"Good Morning, Mr Hicks" : Haircut, Suit & Tie, He Looked Like He Was Going For A Job Interview

US Defence Secretary Robert Gates Wants Gitmo Closed Because It Has No International Credibility - Too Tainted For Trials

Hicks Withdraws Claims Of Abuse And Torture At The Hands Of Americans

David Hicks : The Friendly Terrorist

Public Will Lose Interest As Feuding Over Justice Vs Injustice For Hicks Enters More Shrill Phase

David Hicks became the first 'terror' suspect to face what passes for justice at the Guantanamo military tribunal, and he will go down in the history books for that reason alone.

In the end, the military tribunal hearing, which was supposed to be the start of the first Gitmo terror trial, wasn't much of a show at all. It barely lasted a few hours in total.

Despite the charges against him, such as they were, it's hard to go past the convincing argument made by his father, Terry Hicks, that his son would plead guilty to just about anything if it meant he would be set free from his "living hell".

A huge slice of the Australian public would appear to be in agreement with Terry Hicks, if the thousands who commented on talkback radio and on media news blogs are to be believed.

In the long-term, Terry Hicks' argument for why his son pleaded guilty will over-ride the "justice delivered" claims now being made by the Australian and American governments.

That he pleaded guilty to get out of Gitmo and will settle in the long-term memories of most Australians as the reason why Hicks 'confessed' to giving material support to the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan.

The US has now re-paid an Iraq War support favour to the Australian government by running Hicks through the military tribunal and allowing him to return to Australia before the Australian federal election campaign begins.

Hicks could be back home and in an Australian maximum security prison to serve out what might be a few months or a few years in a matter of weeks, if not days.

It's taken five years to get to this stage. But Hicks did exactly what the US and Australian governments hoped he would, or knew he would, if he was locked away without a trial for long enough. Hicks pleaded guilty to a terror-related charge. Come his sentencing on Friday, Hicks will officially be a convicted terrorist.

The Americans wanted the whole David Hicks fiasco to be over with years ago. That's why they offered Hicks back to the Australian government to do as they so wished, as they had offered to allow Saudi and UK suspects to go home without a trial.

But the Australian attorney general, Phillip Ruddock, refused to let Hicks return home to Australia without being tried by the US military.

The Howard government wanted the Americans to deal with Hicks because, as Ruddock repeatedly admitted, there were and are no laws in Australia to convict a suspected terrorist for undertaking actions in Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Hicks' legal limbo lasted until the vast majority of the Australian public, surprisingly, started to back Hicks (to varying degrees) in mid-2006.

Prime minister John Howard then realised Hicks was going to be a dangerous liability at the next federal election, due towards the end of this year.

Howard publicly demanded action from the Americans, claiming he had talked to President Bush about Hicks by phone, but White House officials told the media Bush and Howard hadn't talked "in months".

In an attempt to placate the growing public anger and frustration, foreign minister Alexander Downer started complaining about how long it was taking for justice to be done. Downer's damp-down effort only ramped up the public's dismay at the US, and at the federal government.

When Howard heard Hicks was about to formally charged in February, he announced he had "set a deadline" for the American military to either charge Hicks or release him.

Naturally, they charged him, just as they were planning to do. Howard thought Australians would believe that he had shouted "jump" to the Americans and they had replied, "How high, sir?" He was wrong. Nobody believed him.

The US military charged Hicks with giving material support to terrorists, and it turns out this was the very least of his alleged crimes.


STORY CONTINUES BELOW....
-------------------------------------------------

More blogs by Darryl Mason

Read Latest Stories From 'Your New Reality'

Read Latest Stories From 'The Fourth World War'

Read Latest Stories From 'Planet Of Strange Things'

Read Latest Stories From 'The Last Days Of President Bush'

------------------------------------------------
STORY CONTINUES....

For years, Australians were told that Hicks had tried to kill people, that he was Osama Bin Laden's "mate", that he had tried to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan, that Hicks had conspired to commit acts of terrorism, and that he wanted to blow up his fellow countrymen back in Australia. Some of those claims came directly from government ministers like Alexander Downer, who never bothered to say "allegedly".

But despite the hype from the Australian and US governments, Hicks only ended up pleading guilty to to the lesser part of a double charge of providing material support for terrorism, and the US military prosecutor accepted this to get Hicks out of Guantanamo Bay and get him off the front pages of Australian newspapers.

The charge Hicks pleaded guilty to was a serious enough charge by itself. But it's a long way from earlier claims by President Bush, Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer and a cacophony of pro-torture, pro-war opinionists in Australia and the US who collectively claimed Hicks was "the worst of the worst" and an incredibly dangerous man.

But thanks to the (eventual) intervention of John Howard, David Hicks could now walk free within a matter of days.

If he is so dangerous, so virulent a jihadist bent on destroying Western society as they all had claimed, and such a threat to all, aren't John Howard and Bush Co. now putting Australian citizens at risk by allowing David Hicks to walk among us a free man?

The military prosecution were claiming as recently as four days ago that once the trial began, they would present evidence of Hicks' terror adventures that would change forever the opinions of those Australians who supported Hicks, and/or demanded he be given a trial or set free.

All that evidence will now, most likely, never see the light of day.

For the US military tribunals, this may turn out to be a good thing. For Hicks at least, the tribunal won't have to try and use evidence collected under torture and duress.

Providing material support for terrorism is serious, but it's also a weak and immaterial charge, compared to what he was alleged to have done.

Compared to claims he had attempted to murder American soldiers, and that he had intended to take an active part in terrorism, the charge of providing material support for terrorism is the kind of charge you might cop if you're a Muslim in the UK who has donated money to dodgy Palestinian charities and you've been busted with copies of John Pilger and Michael Moore DVDs next to your TV, and been spotted hanging hung out at mosques frequented by pro-jihadists, and written "We must destroy President Bush" at a few internet chat rooms.

Providing material support for terrorism is the kind of vague charge that is wide open to legal interpretation, and it's no doubt meant to be.

But regardless, Hicks is now a convicted, self-admitted terrorist.

So let the feuding begin :

The pro-Hicks crowd is right because the US Military decided to go with what amounts to a plea bargain, to get a victory for Bush and his war tribunal system, instead of having Hicks face the full charges they had long promised. Was justice delivered? No. Was there evidence of serious war crimes? No. Was Hicks tortured? Oh yes. Was what happened in Gitmo yesterday a farce of a trial held in a kangaroo court? You bet.

The anti-Hicks crowd is right because David Hicks pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related charge, he propagated Jews-Control-The-World conspiracy theories, he'd met Osama Bin Laden, praised Sharia law in Afghanistan under the Taliban and expressed his desire to die for Allah. And don't forget Hicks had also converted from being of the Christian faith to being of the Muslim faith back in the 1990s. And don't forget he also changed his name, from a Christian one to an Islamic one.

The arguments from both sides are about to get a whole lot more heated, louder, and more shrill, but not for long I suspect.

Once Hicks is home, and his requisite Major TV Interview is over and done with, interest in this story is likely to fade fast, even if Hicks' Australian lawyers work the local courts to try and get his American conviction dismissed, or recognised as legally null and void.

Nobody can expect this story to occupy the front and centre attention of most Australians for much longer. We all know the story, and know we all know the ending.

Hicks The Terrorist Vs Hicks The Victim Of Injustice has been relentlessly flogged by both sides for more than eighteen months solid now, and frankly I'm surprised that the public interest level has stayed so high, for so long.

It won't last. It can't last.

And after a short grace period, perhaps a day or two, you can expect Howard and Downer and their media mouthpieces to relentlessly ram home the fact that Hicks was charged with terrorism, and that he pleaded guilty.

Just as those who think Hicks was denied justice and used as a political tool in a dodgy war will bullhorn their version of what happened.

And on and on it will go.


Some details on the charge Hicks pleaded guilty to from The Australian :

Hicks’s US military lawyer, Major Michael Mori, entered the plea to the charge of material support for terrorism which was broken into two counts or specifications.

Major Mori rose and said Hicks pled guilty on specification one, and not guilty on specification two.

Specification one of the charge detailed at length Hicks's links to terrorist organisations and his activities in Afghanistan where he met Osama bin Laden and completed al-Qa'ida training courses.

Specification two simply alleged that Hicks entered Afghanistan from about December 2000 to December 2001 to provide support for terrorism and that he did so in “in the context of and was associated with an armed conflict namely al-Qa'ida or its associated forces against the United States or its coalition partners”.

The Age has a good story on the long-awaited father and son reunion :

Terry Hicks has told of his emotional reunion with his son, hours before David Hicks told a US court at Guantanamo Bay he was guilty of a terrorism charge.

"We shook hands, hugged and cried," Terry told reporters during a break in proceedings.

Terry and his daughter, Stephanie, today spent three hours with Hicks before today's first military commission hearing.

The 31-year-old was shackled by an ankle and was in his pale green prison uniform during the reunion.

"It was hard at the start because of all the emotions," Terry said. "Once we got going it was OK."

Asked if there were tears, Terry replied: "Too right, yeah. Of course there was. It's good to have emotions."

Many topics of conversation were covered, as Terry and Stephanie had not seen Hicks for almost three years.

Hicks was especially keen to hear how his children were.

"He just wants to try and get back to Australia, see his kids and have a normal life," Terry said.

John Howard and Alexander Downer spin the news with enthusiasm.

From the ABC :

"I'm pleased for everybody's sake that this saga has come to a conclusion," Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said.

He said Hicks could be back on home soil soon, under a prisoner exchange deal with the United States.

"We have an arrangement with the Americans whereby he can serve any residue of his sentence in an Australian prison," Mr Downer said.

Mr Downer admitted that the US legal process took too long.

"First of all there was the view that Hicks clearly couldn't have done anything wrong, and we hate the Americans and all of that," he said.

"There were people who thought David Hicks should just be strung up, he was obviously a horror.

"And there were people in the middle, which is where I was, really. My view was always that the legal process had just taken far too long."

Prime Minister John Howard has told Parliament the plea is welcome but he is still not happy the process has taken this long.

"The Government remains concerned at the length of time that has passed before reaching this point," he said.

"However, the Government does welcome the progress towards resolution of Hicks's case. It has always been our view that Hicks should face justice but we have been very concerned about the time that it has taken."

Howard and Downer claim they were concerned about the length of time the justice-facing took to become a reality.

Of course they were.

It was dragging the government down in the polls, giving highly flammable fuel to the Opposition to attack Howard and Downer, and Bush Co. and was making the government look like they were letting The Americans smack around a young, white Australian who didn't deserve what was he copping.

Last year, Howard and Downer were "concerned" at the time it was taking for Hicks to be charged and tried.

But they've been extremely concerned since polls earlier this year said at least six out of ten Australians thought Howard should demand the Americans try Hicks or release him.

It was the monumental shift in public opinion, and the fact that the David Hicks story was a media event that would not die down, that forced the Howard government to act.

They didn't want to. But they had to.

CODA

Despite the guilty plea from Hicks, the news that the first military tribunal hearing gained a "positive" result has not exactly set the American media on fire.

It will be interesting to see how Bush Co. try to capitalise on what happened yesterday, and if the public gets behind the military tribunals, which at the moment seems highly unlikely.

Coming Soon : David Hicks Arrives Home In Australia, Quickly Fades Into Relative Obscurity


Father And Son Reunited Before Military Tribunal Hearing

Hicks Will Be Home This Year, Suggest Prosecutor

Downer Claims He Was "Always In The Middle" On Hicks Guilt

Prosecutor Says Deal Cut For Hicks Was Not A Plea Bargain

Foreign Minister Downer Welcomes End Of Hicks '"Saga", Says Bush Co. Made Mistake In Not Creating Military Commission By Act Of Congress

'Tourist' Mementos From Guantanamo Bay

Commenters From 'The Australian'

Commenters From The Sydney Morning Herald

Commenters From Blogocracy

Commenters From The Road To Surfdom

The David Hicks Hex & Mocking Phillip Ruddock

Originally posted on 'The Road To Surfdom'

By Darryl Mason

It’s not often you get to see a roomful of Australians laughing at the Attorney General, twice, in the space of an hour. And it wasn’t a pretty sight.

No doubt Phillip Ruddock was expecting a particularly uncomfortable afternoon when he went along to the taping of SBS’s Insight forum show debating the American detention of terrorism suspect, and Australian citizen, David Hicks.

You can only imagine Ruddock never expected it to go as bad as it did. How bad?

Absolutely terrible.

Ruddock was given numerous chances to make his case for why the Howard government had not done more, earlier, to pressure the Bush administration into getting the David Hicks military trial underway, or to get him released. But there was nothing new from Ruddock. His talking points were dashed by lawyerly waffle and blame-gaming.

Blame Hick’s defence, blame the other Gitmo inmates who appealed against the earlier, discredited, Supreme Court rejected military trial set-up, and yes, even blame the Americans as well.

Ruddock wasn’t out to save the credibility of the American military trial system now in place. He wasn’t out to save the credibility of the prime minister, or Alexander Downer, or President Bush. Ruddock was there, with his Amnesty International pin in place, to try and rescue the last fading threads of his own credibility. And he failed.

The loudest laugh from the audience, a laugh full of contempt and disbelief, came when Ruddock said the Australian government had never been happy with the time it had taken for Hicks to firstly be charged and then for the military trial rules to be finalised and accepted by the highest court in the United States.

They laughed because they know the Howard government only changed its tune on Hicks once it became clear that his five year long detention, without trial, was the sort of “fair go” issue that could hammer Howard hard at the 2007 federal election. They changed their tune when the polls showing almost 70% of Australians were not happy with Howard on the issue of David Hicks told them they had no choice.

But even worse for Ruddock, his waffly, defensive rhetoric seemed even more cold and empty than usual because David Hick’s dad and his shattered step-mother were sitting only a few seats away. The distress on her face alone made Ruddock’s words seem all but meaningless.
Ruddock looked close to tears himself, on a number of occasions, even though the case against what has happened to David Hicks was argued reasonably, and calmly, by Terry Hicks, former Guantanamo Bay detainees, audience members and Hick’s defence lawyer Major Mori.

It was hardly a gang assault of abuse and shouting aimed at Ruddock, but he still came close to cracking.

He was there to represent the government and his department but he also found himself, as usual, defending the actions of the Bush administration, something he was clearly not happy having to do. But there lies the rub. Ruddock had choice but to try and back up the stance of Bush Co. when it comes to detainees like Hicks. They’re our closest ally, after all. And this is supposed to a war against terrorists, suspected and/or confirmed.

Most in the audience didn’t look particularly angry, just sad, disappointed, worn out by the apparent pettiness of the evidence against Hicks that was raised by his military prosecutor.

Is that it? Is that all they’ve got on this guy?

As terrible as it is that a young Australian went to fight for an outfit as odious as the Taliban, the charges still not formally laid against Hicks, and the case made by the prosecutor (who couldn’t have asked for a more open forum to say whatever he wanted), still don’t add up to enough to make most Australians think Hicks deserves to be held like a rat in a steel box for half a decade.

Let alone be tortured and mind-fucked.

Go Here To Read The Full Story

Prime Minister : I Can Free David Hicks Whenever I Want...

But I'm Not Going To

David Hicks is probably the most famous and easily recognised name in Australia at the moment. His plight has generated enormous publicity in the Australian media, and for the past three months, much of that spotlight's glare has been downright sympathetic.

Which is remarkable, when you consider that the US military accuses 31 year old David Hicks of aiding terrorists and attempting to commit murder.

He is one of the Guantanamo Bay detainees that President Bush, and former US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, used to refer to as, "killers who kill" and "the worst of the worst."

For five years, Hicks has been isolated, tortured, deprived of sunlight, of sensory stimulation, of human contact. His lawyers claim he has become like a tired, old man, desperate and despondent. They fear he may prove to be mentally unfit to stand trial.

Hicks spends 22 hours a day in what his lawyer has described as a "steel cell". He is under constant surveillance, in order to prevent suicide attempts.

Hicks's lawyer, David McLeod, spent four days visiting Hicks In Guantanamo Bay last week :

"...when I left David on the Thursday, in my 30 years of professional life it was one of the hardest and most heartrending things I had to do.

To look him in the eye and say "David, I don't know when we'll be seeing you again, we'll do our best for you", but it was like looking into the eyes of someone dying from a potentially fatal illness who is being denied the life saving drug that would cure his ill and to leave him in that state alone with his thoughts, nobody to talk to, nobody to comfort him, it was a very heartrending thing for me to do...."

The US military have denied Hicks the opportunity of independent psychiatric assessment. No doubt they fear that any psychiatrist given access to a man like Hicks, who has been detained in such conditions for so long, is going to shout long and loud about the intolerable inhumanity inflicted upon him.

Last week the US Military announced they were planning to finally charge Hicks, but last night they revealed it could be months more before Hicks even gets close to facing trial by the reconstituted military tribunal.

Three years ago, most Australians would have not recognised David Hicks' name, or known why he was being held hostage by the American military in Guantanamo Bay.

But they know who he is now.

They know his face, they know parts of his life story, they are seeing images of him as a bright-eyed kid on a televised ad campaign, and they know the pain and torment his aging father has suffered while the Howard government refused to even pressure President Bush to get the Australian charged and on trial for four long years.

It was only after shocking polls showed just how much support the 'trial now or release him' demands by campaigners had found amongst the Australian public that John Howard was finally seen to be putting at least some pressure on his "close friend" President Bush.

As a sign of the extraordinary change in how Australian view Hicks' plight, a story about his extended detention and shattered mental state was aired last night on the highest rating current affairs in the country, and there was barely a mention that he was a suspected terrorist, or that he had been 'captured' by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan in the weeks following the 9/11 attacks and sold for a bounty to US forces.

The story on Today Tonight stuck to a new script determined by polls that showed more than 70% of Australians were vastly unhappy with how the Howard government has dealt with the Hicks fiasco.

Almost 50% of Australians said that what happened to David Hicks would affect the choices they made come election day.

Remarkably, the demands by the Australian public that Hicks either face a fair trial for his alleged crimes or be set free is now shaping up to be one of the four key election decisions that will determine whether or not John Howard remains prime minister of Australia come 2008.



Prime minister Howard admitted yesterday that he can get David Hicks out of Guantanamo Bay any time he wants to.

But he won't do it, because he believes Hicks must face the terrorism-related charges set to be filed by the US Military, despite the fact that virtually no reputable law firm or expert in the world believes the trials proposed by the US military will come close to being fair, or just.

When Howard told his coalition MPs yesterday afternoon, on the first day that federal parliament resumed for 2007, that he could get the United States to set Hicks free, at least six MPs demanded to know why Howard wouldn't allow Hicks to come home.

Howard replied that Hicks couldn't be tried for his alleged crimes in Australia, as no offence under Australian law been committed at the time he was captured.

What Howard is saying is that he cannot stomach the fact that Hicks could be flown home to Australia and go free, to be reunited with his family after five long years.

But Australians have grown very aware of how their prime minister has manipulated them over the past decade, and they will be extremely suspicious if Howard manages to secure the release of David Hicks in the coming weeks.

If Howard thinks he can now boost his rapidly diminishing chances of winning the upcoming federal elections by Hicks out of Gitmo, before he faces trial, he's going to be in for a shocker of a surprise.

Hicks coming home would make the vast majority of Australians very happy, but that is unlikely to translate into votes for Howard. If anything, it may make Australians even more cynical about the prime minister's motivations, and his humanity.

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

(Howard) indicated yesterday he would not let him languish indefinitely, saying he would set the US further timelines for the case to be dealt with.

He earlier gave the US until the middle of this month for Mr Hicks to be charged. At the weekend, two new charges were sworn against Mr Hicks but have not yet been approved or laid.

Lawyers from the US State Department said yesterday it was unlikely he would be formally charged by mid-February, and it was too early to say whether he would be tried within a year.

The Prime Minister said public sentiment was shifting and the matter had not been well handled by the Americans.

But this did not deter backbenchers from speaking out, saying it was not the person but the process that concerned them.

....MPs pointed out that Mr Hicks's case was becoming a "big concern" in the community.

The West Australian senator Judith Adams said a Labor victory in a state byelection in Perth over the weekend was in part fuelled by anger over Mr Hicks and Iraq.

Mr Howard dismissed this.

Labor's legal affairs spokesman, Kelvin Thomson, said Mr Howard's claim exposed the whole process as a joke.

"If the Prime Minister is claiming he can determine, and therefore by default, is determining David Hicks's fate, this is outrageous," Mr Thomson said.

New Charges Against David Hicks Announced : Is That All They've Got On Him?

Attorney General Approves Use Of "Coerced Evidence" Against Hicks In Trial

Hicks' Lawyer : "He's Clearly On The Spiral Of Despair"

Court Declares David Hicks' Military Trial Would Be Illegal

Prime Minister Howard Blames "Bad Advice"...Yet Again

Prime Minister John Howard likes to boast, in private, that he can get Australian terror suspect David Hicks freed from Guantanamo Bay any time he likes just by calling his good mates George & Dick.

But how quickly Howard changes his tune when he realises how big an election issue the David Hicks saga may become.

From news.com :

Prime Minister John Howard has urged the US to find a quick alternative for dealing with terrorist suspects held at Guantanamo Bay after the inmates won a major court victory. In a blow to US President George W Bush and the US military, America's Supreme Court has ruled the controversial military commissions set up to prosecute Australian David Hicks and other Guantanamo prisoners were illegal.

Mr Howard said he was not embarrassed by the ruling but admitted his government, and the US administration, were incorrectly advised that the military commission process was lawful.

He said the US government had to move fast to find another process to try Hicks and the other detainees at the US naval base in Cuba.

"What now has to happen is that, quite quickly in my view, the administration has to decide how it will deal with the trial of the people who are being held," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

"Our view in relation to Mr Hicks is that he should be brought to trial.

"As the military commission trial is regarded by the court as unconstitutional, there clearly has to be another method of trial – a court martial or a civilian trial – which conforms with the supreme court decision."

From the Sydney Morning Herald :

Australian terror detainee David Hicks's military lawyer said he was not surprised by Thursday's US Supreme Court ruling upholding a challenge against military war crimes trials for Guantanamo Bay inmates.

The decision will have major implications for Hicks, who has faced a military commission, but is yet to face trial.

Marine Major Michael Mori, the US military lawyer appointed to defend Hicks, said the ruling did not surprise him.

"The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along," Major Mori said.

"Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

From news.com :

Mr Howard said he was not embarrassed by the ruling but admitted his government, and the US administration, were incorrectly advised that the military commission process was lawful.

He said the US Government had to move fast to find another process to try Hicks and the other detainees at the US naval base in Cuba.

"What now has to happen is that, quite quickly in my view, the administration has to decide how it will deal with the trial of the people who are being held," he told Southern Cross broadcasting.

"Our view in relation to Mr Hicks is that he should be brought to trial.

"As the military commission trial is regarded by the court as unconstitutional, there clearly has to be another method of trial - a court martial or a civilian trial - which conforms with the supreme court decision."

Federal Human Services Minister Joe Hockey said it was up to Mr Bush to decide what to do with Hicks.

"We have been pushing and pushing the US Government to put him to trial - to try him and have him convicted," he said.

"There has been a lot of legal argy bargy.

"Now the US Supreme Court, the highest court in the US, has said that they believe the Guantanamo Bay process is wrong ... and the ball is now back in President Bush's court.

"Obviously, we will be waiting for the US Government to find out what they will do now with Hicks."

Quotes From Key Players In The Gitmo Fiasco :

PRESIDENT GEORGE W BUSH:

"As I understand it - now, please don't hold me to this - ... there is a way forward with military tribunals in working with the United States Congress. As I understand, certain senators have already been out expressing their desire to address what the Supreme Court found. And we will work with the Congress.

"And one thing I'm not going to do, though, is I'm not going to jeopardise the safety of the American people. People got to understand that. I understand we're in a war on terror, that these people were picked up off of a battlefield, and I will protect the people and at the same time conform with the findings of the Supreme Court.

LT. CMDR. CHARLES SWIFT, a lawyer for Salim Ahmed Hamdan, defendant in the case before the US Supreme Court:

"All we wanted was a fair trial and we thank the Supreme Court. Yes it is a rebuke for the process. ... It means we can't be scared out of who we are."

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL:

"Today's Supreme Court ruling blocking the military commissions set up by President George W. Bush is a victory for the rule of law and human rights. The US administration should ensure that those held in Guantanamo should be either released or brought before civilian courts on the US mainland."

ZACHARY KATZNELSON, lawyer for 36 Guantanamo inmates including Ethiopian Binyam Muhammad, one of 10 who faced charges before the military commission:

"I think its a fantastic victory for us. It's a strong rebuke from the Supreme Court to President Bush. They clearly have said he is not above the law and that the men at Guantanamo absolutely have rights, and the military commissions are just blatantly illegal."

US SENATOR PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont Democrat on Judiciary Committee:

"For five years, the Bush-Cheney administration has violated fundamental American values, tarnished our standing in the world and hindered the partnerships we need with our allies. This arrogance and incompetence have delayed and weakened the handling of the war on terror, not because of any coherent strategic view it had, but because of its stubborn unilateralism and dangerous theory of unfettered power.

SENATORS LINDSEY GRAHAM AND JON KYL, Republicans of South Carolina and Arizona:

"We are disappointed with the Supreme Court's decision. ... It is inappropriate to try terrorists in civilian courts. ... We intend to pursue legislation in the Senate granting the Executive Branch the authority to ensure that terrorists can be tried by competent military commissions.

SENATOR EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts Democrat:

"This decision is a stunning repudiation of the Bush administration's lawless behaviour at Guantanamo. As we approach the Fourth of July, it is entirely appropriate that the Supreme Court has reminded the president and Secretary Rumsfeld that there is no excuse for ignoring the rule of law, even when our country is at war."

MICHAEL MORI, a military lawyer appointed to defend Australian prisoner David Hicks before the tribunals:

"It doesn't come as a shock to me. The military lawyers who have been defending the defendants at Guantanamo have been saying this all along. Any real lawyer who isn't part of the administration knows this violates the Geneva Conventions."

FARHAT PARACHA, whose husband was sent to Guantanamo in 2004 after 15 months at a detention centre in Afghanistan:

"There is no justice. They have no rights, even don't have status of prisoners of war. It reminds me of the medieval era. ... Really, it is not serving any purpose but triggering more and more hatred."

Supreme Court Completely Rejects Gitmo War Crimes Trials

Supreme Cout Decision Is "A Nail In The Coffin For The Idea That The President Can Set Up These Trials"