Australian Government Defies International Rules over David Hicks

The following is a press release from the Office of Senator Penny Wright, Greens Senator for South Australia.

August 24, 2011

Government Defies International Rules over Hicks

Greens Attorney-General spokesperson Senator Penny Wright today questioned the Government over its failure to reply to the United Nations Human Rights Committee within a set period after a complaint was made on David Hicks' behalf.

Rule 97(2) of the UN Human Rights Committee's Rules of Procedure stipulates that replies to complaints be submitted within six months.

In a question to the Minister representing the Attorney-General, Senator Wright said the United Nations Human Rights Committee had received a complaint from Sydney barrister, and professor of international law, Ben Saul, in relation to Mr Hicks' incarceration at Guantanamo Bay and the plea agreement that saw his return to Australia.

"The Government was required to respond within six months but indicated they would take a further three months, in order to fully 'address the issues' and 'consult with stakeholders'," Senator Wright said.

"Now nine months after the Committee sought a response, Australia has still not complied with the Committee's procedural rules, which are binding under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This suggests a lack of respect for the Committee's procedural rules.

"Since this complaint was lodged the Government has devoted substantial resources to commencing new legal proceedings against David Hicks to seize profits from his book, yet it has not had time to respond to the complaint about a breach of his human rights, relating to the term of the previous government.

"The Greens are concerned about the Government's priorities. It seems to be placing its concern about Mr Hicks profiting from his book ahead of addressing his complaint about a serious breach of his human rights."

More than nine months have elapsed since the complaint was lodged with the United Nations.

As Australian News reports, "Earlier this month, the NSW Supreme Court froze profits from the book under proceeds of crime laws." But then, the world community was stunned when David's book was nominated for an important literary prize. Unavailable in the U.S., the book is a major achievement, and tells the story of Hicks' life, including shocking details of his torture at Guantanamo.

FORMER Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks says that if he wins a Queensland Premier's Literary Prize, he will donate the money to torture victims.

"If I win this award, every cent will go to victims of torture," Hicks said in a statement on Ten Network tonight.

Hicks would not agree to be interviewed and simply added: "I have never been a supporter of terrorism. I had no choice but to sign a piece of paper to get out of Guantanamo Bay."

His comments come after his book, Guantanamo: My Journey was shortlisted in the non-fiction category earlier this month.

HRW Says, "Australia: Don't Seize David Hicks's Assets"

As many already know, the government of Australia has initiated legal proceedings to seize all assets David Hicks may have derived from his book, Guantanamo: My Journey.

The following is from an August 15 press release from Human Rights Watch:

(Washington, DC) – The Australian prosecutor’s office should drop the asset-seizing case against former Guantanamo detainee David Hicks for money he earned from a book he wrote about his six years in US custody at Guantanamo Bay, Human Rights Watch said today.

Australian David Hicks was captured in Afghanistan in 2001 and transferred to Guantanamo Bay in January 2002. He was charged in a military commission under a system created by then-President George W. Bush that was later deemed to be unlawful by the US Supreme Court.

Following the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, Hicks was charged with providing material support for terrorism and faced a possible life sentence. In exchange for a guilty plea, he was offered a sentence of seven years, only nine months of which he would have to actually serve. Hicks pleaded guilty in April 2007.

“A conviction in an unfair and illegitimate system should not be considered proof of a crime,” said Andrea Prasow, senior counterterrorism counsel at Human Rights Watch. “David Hicks alleges years of mistreatment and abuse by US forces and the failure of the Australian government to protect him. He should not be punished for telling that story.”

Hicks’ account of his six years in US custody was published in Guantanamo, My Journey, in late 2010. Proceeds from that publication are the subject of the prosecutor’s seizure and forfeiture action under the Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act. The prosecutor is relying on Hicks’ guilty plea, as well as the statement of facts signed by him in connection with the plea, as evidence that he committed an offense under the law of another country.

After his plea, Hicks was returned to his native Australia where he served out the remaining seven months of his sentence in Yatala prison. He was released in December 2007. Included in his plea agreement was a one-year gag rule prohibiting him from discussing his treatment or capture and from profiting from the sale of his story. Following the election of US President Barack Obama, Congress again substantially revised the 2006 Military Commissions Act under which Hicks was prosecuted.

Throughout his detention, Hicks told his lawyers he had been mistreated by US forces in both Afghanistan and Guantanamo by being beaten, made to endure prolonged sleep deprivation, and being forced to take unidentified medication. Former military commissions chief prosecutor Morris Davis testified in other court proceedings that Hicks’ plea agreement was negotiated without his knowledge, suggesting political forces were involved in the agreement.

On August 3, 2011, the New South Wales Supreme Court issued a restraining order on the use of assets derived from the sale of Hicks’ book. The case was adjourned until August 16 to allow the prosecutor to obtain additional evidence, at which time they are expected to ask for seizure of the assets obtained from the publication of the book.

“Although Hicks has alleged years of unlawful and abusive detention, neither the US nor Australia has ever offered him compensation or an apology,” Prasow said. “The prosecutor’s action would just compound that abuse.”

Aussie Prosecutors' Vendetta Targets Ex-Guantanamo Detainee's Book Proceeds

Australian news sources have announced that the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) have initiated legal actions to seize the royalties former Guantanamo detainee David Hicks has earned from the publication of his autobiography, Guantanamo: My Journey. The book was published last year by Random House Australia, and has reportedly sold upwards of 30,000 copies. No U.S. publisher has bought rights to the book, and it remains unavailable through U.S. booksellers.

Terry Hicks, David’s father, called the move “absolutely disgusting,” and according to my sources, the Hicks family is said to be “devastated.”

According to a report by The Australian, under Australia's Commonwealth Proceeds of Crime Act "a person cannot profit from proceeds derived from the commercial exploitation of their criminal notoriety arising from a foreign indictable offence." The "offense" in this case is Hicks' guilty plea before the spurious U.S. military commissions to supposedly "providing material support to terrorism."

But as Australian barrister Ben Saul, who has advised Hicks in various matters, noted last February, responding to earlier propaganda beseeching the Australian government to confiscate Hicks' book earnings:

Yet, it is almost certain that such offence did not exist in law at the time of Hicks’ conduct. As a result, his conviction is retrospective and contrary to international law. The conviction for that bogus offence also resulted from a procedurally unfair trial, and probably torture.

Saul also commented in the same article on the irony that calls have gone out to confiscate any profits David Hicks might receive from his book, while former Australian Prime Minister John Howard is free to profit from his own memoir, recently published, Lazarus Rising. Howard, Saul notes "has evaded comparable scrutiny, principally because his suspected crime - the illegal, aggressive invasion of Iraq - is not covered by Australia’s proceeds of crime laws."

Indeed, not only was Howard guilty of using his executive powers to commit Australian forces to the U.S.-organized 2003 invasion of Iraq, he was also heavily involved in decisions made around the incarceration of Hicks himself, as the former Guantanamo detainee and torture victim describes in his book (which again, I stress, is unavailable through routine retail outlets in the United States). It was only through the intervention of Dick Cheney, and his hand-picked military commissions Convening Authority Susan Crawford, on behalf of U.S. authorities desperate at the time to conclude at least one of their military commissions prosecutions, that a plea deal was ever struck.

Interestingly, the plea deal allowed an Alford plea, which meant Hicks could plea guilty to the single "material support" charge, while never formally agreeing to admit to guilt in his actions. In his book, Hicks clearly states that he pleaded guilty in order to get out of Guantanamo, and that up to that time, he had been in fact considering suicide.

Susan Crawford, after negotiating with my lawyers and saying no to serving less time, agreed to allow me to enter an Alford Plea if I chose, as an incentive to cooperate. Under this US legislation, a person can plead guilty without admitting to the act they are accused of. In other words, contrary to media reports, I did not ‘admit’ or ‘confess’ to providing material support to terrorism; I pleaded guilty without accepting guilt to the charge so I could return home. To plead guilty was really saying that the system was unfair and I could never win, not that I ever provided support to a terrorist organisation.

I had two choices: take the Alford Plea and face all ramifications and consequences that would follow, or return to my cell, resign myself to hopelessness and follow through with my suicide plan.

The plea bargain also included other onerous conditions, including a one-year gag order, an agreement he would assign all monies from his story to the Australian government, a statement that he was not coerced into accepting the plea bargain, and an agreement to cooperate with U.S. and Australian security officials for the rest of his life, among other ridiculous stipulations.

It is difficult to know why the CDPP has decided now to officially go after Hicks' royalties. One wonders if it had anything to do with the warm reception and ovation he received when he spoke to "a packed audience of 1000 people at the Sydney Writers' Festival" last May. At the same event, Hicks "also warned that Julian Assange could face a similar abandonment by the Australian government, if the US government get their hands on him."

Certainly the Australian government has not taken kindly to the fact that David has chosen not to remain silent about the abuses he endured, or the criminal activities that took place at Guantanamo. Last year, he submitted an affidavit (PDF) to the United Nations Human Rights Committee, detailing numerous breaches of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights relevant to his case.

One of the items concerns the charges of "material support":

In 2007, a United States (US) military commission at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, convicted Mr Hicks of the offence of ‘providing material support for terrorism’ under section 950v(25) of the Military Commission Act 2006 (USA) (‘MCA’) (Annexure C). That offence was unknown to international law or US domestic law at the time of Mr Hicks’ alleged conduct and Mr Hicks was thus subject to retroactive criminal punishment, contrary to article 15 of the ICCPR. By entering into a Prisoner Transfer Arrangement (Annexure Q) with the US, to enforce Mr Hicks’ sentence of imprisonment in an Australian prison, and by enacting related domestic legislation, Australia assumed direct responsibility for the unlawful, retrospective criminal punishment of Mr Hicks. Such conduct was not justifiable and reasonable alternatives to it were available in order to achieve the humanitarian purpose of securing Mr Hicks’ release from Guantanamo Bay.

Nevertheless, according to The Australian article, University of New South Wales law professor George Williams thought the CDPP had "a strong case." "But that is subject to a court giving weight and recognizing the validity of Hicks's plea and the conviction. This may well be an opportunity for David Hicks to open up questions about those matters," Professor Williams said.

Torture and Medical Experimentation

Why would a man plead guilty to something to which he was innocent? Why was such a plea -- or suicide -- preferable to continued detention in the U.S. Cuban island prison?

As David Hicks outlined in his book, he was subjected to numerous kinds of torture, in addition to probable medical experiments. Last February, investigative journalist Jason Leopold published at Truthout the first in-depth interview with Hicks. In his introduction, Leopold summarized the torture Hicks endured at the hands of Guantanamo authorities:

Hicks was brutally tortured. Psychologically and physically for four years, maybe longer. He was injected in the back of his neck with unknown drugs. He was sodomized with a foreign object. He spent nearly a year in solitary confinement. He was beaten once for ten hours. He was threatened with death. He was placed in painful stress positions. He was subjected to sleep deprivation. He was exposed to extremely cold temperatures, loud music and strobe lights designed to disorient his senses. He was interrogated on a near daily basis.

In Guantanamo: My Journey, Hicks described one of the medical experiments:

I was given an injection. Within an hour or so I couldn’t help but huddle in a corner of the cage. Physically, I felt comfortable, even though it was an odd thing for me to do. In the back of my mind I knew it was strange, but as long as I stayed in that corner I had no real thoughts at all. When I tried to move from that position, whether to eat or go to the toilet, I became extremely agitated and nervous. I would quickly resume my huddled position. Getting the slight shakes was another side effect of this medication. Some time on the second day I began to feel normal again and came out of the corner. I knew I had acted unusually but, because most of that period was a blank in my mind, I could not decide if the injection was responsible. I think it was the day after, when I began to feel normal again, that I was given another injection. I was scared and pleaded for them not to, but I was threatened with an IRFing if I did not cooperate. [The Immediate Reaction Force (IRF) was a riot squad mobilized to brutalize Guantanamo inmates.] A majority of detainees were being IRFed by then for refusing medication, so I just surrendered my arm, thinking that the needle might snap off in my shoulder if they jabbed me during a beating. I was quickly aware of the results. I went straight to the corner again and curled up but, unlike last time, I was under no illusions about what was happening or why. I tried to fight this chemical reaction but was powerless. My mind was clear and alert, and I could identify my behaviour as abnormal, but my body would not listen to my mind. I had no control and remained in the corner, despite wanting to move. This time around the experience was very distressing. All I could do was wait for the effects of the medication to wear off a full day later.

Once again it was the ICRC [International Committee of the Red Cross] that saved us. This period of forced injections and pills coincided with another visit from the only group of people on that island who did not wish us harm: the ICRC. Before I was given a third injection, MPs came and escorted me to an interrogation building, where I had a private interview with an ICRC employee. I pleaded with him to do something about these medical experiments. He told me that nearly every detainee he had seen so far had reported the same program and its effects. Almost instantly after that interview the injections and tablets were stopped, and I did not have to endure another injection. Instead of nearly daily doses, it went back to the normal – at least one injection every two months, including having blood samples taken.

In the United States, outrageously there has been next to no interest in pursuing charges of medical experimentation upon detainees held by the United States. Similar stories of such experiments have been given by a number of released detainees. Additionally, Jason Leopold and I have published a number of articles about the abusive administration of an unprecedented mass administration of a controversial antimalarial drug, melfoquine, known for serious neuropsychiatric effects, on all Guantanamo detainees as part of their initial in-processing. (See here, here, and here.)

A FOIA of an Inspector General report on drugging of detainees has been in process for this reporter for nearly a year, with such delay belying claims of "transparency" and prompt Freedom of Information response by the Obama Administration.

Clearly, the attempts to seize royalties from David Hicks is part of an attempt to impugn his work, and to punish or isolate him for truth-telling. Such bullying can only be stopped by international and Australian protest.

Update: The Justice Campaign, an Australian human rights, anti-torture organization formed largely to help publicize the David Hicks case has released a statement on the CDPP legal actions.

The Justice Campaign (TJC) is appalled at the news that the Australian Government has moved to recover the proceeds of David Hicks’ book, Guantanamo: My Journey.

TJC patron, the Hon. John Dowd said today “David Hicks has not been convicted of a crime in Australia. He has not been convicted of an offence under US law. There is no basis for removing any profits from the sale of his book.” Justice Dowd said.

“The Military Commissions Charges were invalid under US law and he was coerced.”

TJC spokesperson, Stephen Kenny said today “this is a blatant move to shift the focus of the Australian government’s responsibility to thoroughly and openly investigate torture allegations....

The Justice Campaign remains committed in calling for an investigation into David’s credible allegations of torture and the political interference in his eventual plea deal.

(Note: differences in spelling of some words, i.e. between U.S. and Australian spellings, has been left intact in this article, when Australian spellings were included in quoted material.)

Crossposted at FDL/The Dissenter

Blair on the Road to Chilcot, While Britain Buries David Kelly Again

While former Prime Minister Tony Blair prepares to testify before Britain's Chilcot Commission investigating the circumstances surrounding Blair and the British governments lies to go to war with Iraq in 2003, England has put the country on "severe" terror alert. What Islamic terrorist would want to stop this information from becoming public? What the British fear is their own people, outraged by revelation of how their government sucked up to America and helped game the evidence for going to war.

The script for war was sent out to the satraps in the Commonwealth, as evidenced by the near-identical, word-for-word speeches given at the time by the Prime Ministers of Canada and Austalia. Watch, for both the laughs, and the tears:



H/T whitewidow at Daily Kos, in comments thread on a diary covering the news that Lord Hutton of Britain has locked away the evidence around the death of David Kelly for 70 years!

Re David Kelly and the second round of cover-up surrounding his death, see The Brits Buried Evidence on David Kelly’s Death over at FDL/Emptywheel.

As I wrote last December:

Kelly was reportedly believed to be behind a leak to "the source of a [BBC] story that Tony Blair's government 'sexed-up' its dossier on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq." According to the Daily Mail, Kelly predicted he might be killed. Yet the coroner's investigation into his death was halted by the British government, which declared an inquiry by cronies of British Prime Minister Tony Blair would be sufficient.

Whether it's covering up the evidence of a government killing in Great Britain, or here in the U.S., where a scandal over the attempt to paint torture murders at Guantanamo as "suicides" has recently exploded, the larger picture is of a world in deep, deep trouble. The leaders of the world stand exposed as criminals. They promote war to enrich the "defense" industries, they lie about "terror" threats, while soaking up billions of dollars in what is essentially a shake-down protection scheme. Meanwhile, the economy remains in the hands of the drunken millionaries and billionaires who tried to drive it over the cliff, and hang on with a death grip to the steering world, demanding they remain in control.

If there's anything even worse than all this, it's the cowardice or corruption (most likely both) of the mainstream U.S. press, and particularly its supposed exemplars, the New York Times and the Washington Post, who have reported on none of the above. (At least, that's true of late. The Post, for instance, carried some AP stories on the Chilcot inquiry, and one story by staff reporter Walter Pincus. But neither have done more than perfunctorily run a wire story on the Guantanamo murders.)

A live and thriving blogosphere, and the presence of social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter, plus the courage and ongoing work of crusading bloggers and journalists like Marcy Wheeler, Jeremy Scahill, Andy Worthington, Jason Leopold, and others, keeps the news from being totally throttled. Access to the press online in other countries, like al-Jazeera or the British and Canadian press, is a way to keep up to date. But in America, the capitalist land par excellance, the cultivation of ignorance and denial in the face of terrible crimes and ongoing abuses is honored and respected by the educated elite, while the public feeds on hi-def sports and trivial spectacle.