MAJOR MORI and the aging demonstrators
Last week, Australia has had a visit from Major M D Mori- David Hicks Military lawyer who was in Brisbane Sydney and Perth. In Perth he gave 3 lectures- 2 organised by the Australian Lawyer Alliance and 1 for the Standing Committee of Attorneys General.
Fearless Federal Attorney General Ruddock, also in Perth for that meeting spent part of last Friday morning avoiding Major Mori like the plague.
Having run the gauntlet of a group of demonstrators (mainly middle aged lawyers doctors and professionals- with a smattering of Unionists) calling out “shame Ruddock shame”, Ruddock went into the Maritime Museum where the SCAGS meeting was being held and raced up stairs, sat in a room by himself studiously avoiding the lecture theatre where Mori was setting up, and refusing to listen to the presentation.
Instead he ordered his VIP jet to be on standby for an early take off and, when his staffer noted that the demonstrators had taken advantage of the lull to depart for a latte or two, he slipped out into a waiting car and raced for the airport.
Of course his early departure may have had something to do with questions about whether he had misled the State A-Gs about the Hicks case. Ruddock has always asserted Hicks’ guilt but has been unable to tell any one what Hicks might be guilty of. In his haste to depart he may have missed the news of that very morning, which was that our PM admitted on air that, from an Australian perspective, Hicks had actually committed no crime.
As Major Mori pointed out in his lectures no one has yet been able to make out a crime that Hicks could be guilty of- neither under American Law nor under International law.
Mori’s view is that the US has no particular interest in Hicks and his incarceration (in solitary confinement) appears to be the result of Howard and Ruddock’s refusal to ASK for his repatriation. Iran’s Guantanamo prisoners were returned, as were Blair’s, Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s. The main Taliban spokesman who was in office when America attacked the Taliban has been given a scholarship to Yale. Osama bin Laden’s phone runner (the guy who was responsible for running away from Bin Laden with OBL’s mobile phone to protect the US’s nemesis if the Yanks located OBL using the signal from the mobile phone) has been released back to Afghanistan from Guantanamo.
Had Ruddock bothered to stay with the A-Gs meeting he would also have learned that his assertions that Hicks can get a fair trial under the Military Commissions Act is, by Australian (and US) standards also a falsehood. Hearsay evidence given under torture is admissible; defence Counsel cannot ask for the circumstances under which tortured evidence was given, nor to examine whether inconsistent evidence was given by the same witness (or victim, which ever way you view it). The torturer or interrogator simply tenders their notes of the victim’s statements and that evidence is admitted, and conclusive. Other problems for Ruddocks disingenuous approach include the rule that the defence cannot challenge the make up of the Tribunal for bias even if it is apparent; evidence may be relied upon but withheld from the accused and his Counsel; communications between the Defence Counsel and Hicks will be viewed by the prosecution.
Despite Ruddocks departure that morning, the State A-Gs were able to issue the “Fremantle Declaration”. It is worth a read- a sort of basic civil liberties 101. It apparently doesn’t appeal to Australia’s Chief Law Officer whose day job should include protecting its citizens, not using them -like children overboard- as political pawns.
Fearless Federal Attorney General Ruddock, also in Perth for that meeting spent part of last Friday morning avoiding Major Mori like the plague.
Having run the gauntlet of a group of demonstrators (mainly middle aged lawyers doctors and professionals- with a smattering of Unionists) calling out “shame Ruddock shame”, Ruddock went into the Maritime Museum where the SCAGS meeting was being held and raced up stairs, sat in a room by himself studiously avoiding the lecture theatre where Mori was setting up, and refusing to listen to the presentation.
Instead he ordered his VIP jet to be on standby for an early take off and, when his staffer noted that the demonstrators had taken advantage of the lull to depart for a latte or two, he slipped out into a waiting car and raced for the airport.
Of course his early departure may have had something to do with questions about whether he had misled the State A-Gs about the Hicks case. Ruddock has always asserted Hicks’ guilt but has been unable to tell any one what Hicks might be guilty of. In his haste to depart he may have missed the news of that very morning, which was that our PM admitted on air that, from an Australian perspective, Hicks had actually committed no crime.
As Major Mori pointed out in his lectures no one has yet been able to make out a crime that Hicks could be guilty of- neither under American Law nor under International law.
Mori’s view is that the US has no particular interest in Hicks and his incarceration (in solitary confinement) appears to be the result of Howard and Ruddock’s refusal to ASK for his repatriation. Iran’s Guantanamo prisoners were returned, as were Blair’s, Iraq’s and Afghanistan’s. The main Taliban spokesman who was in office when America attacked the Taliban has been given a scholarship to Yale. Osama bin Laden’s phone runner (the guy who was responsible for running away from Bin Laden with OBL’s mobile phone to protect the US’s nemesis if the Yanks located OBL using the signal from the mobile phone) has been released back to Afghanistan from Guantanamo.
Had Ruddock bothered to stay with the A-Gs meeting he would also have learned that his assertions that Hicks can get a fair trial under the Military Commissions Act is, by Australian (and US) standards also a falsehood. Hearsay evidence given under torture is admissible; defence Counsel cannot ask for the circumstances under which tortured evidence was given, nor to examine whether inconsistent evidence was given by the same witness (or victim, which ever way you view it). The torturer or interrogator simply tenders their notes of the victim’s statements and that evidence is admitted, and conclusive. Other problems for Ruddocks disingenuous approach include the rule that the defence cannot challenge the make up of the Tribunal for bias even if it is apparent; evidence may be relied upon but withheld from the accused and his Counsel; communications between the Defence Counsel and Hicks will be viewed by the prosecution.
Despite Ruddocks departure that morning, the State A-Gs were able to issue the “Fremantle Declaration”. It is worth a read- a sort of basic civil liberties 101. It apparently doesn’t appeal to Australia’s Chief Law Officer whose day job should include protecting its citizens, not using them -like children overboard- as political pawns.
posted by Pierre at 12:49 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home