I must admit that I’m not entirely up to date on the situation of David Hicks. What I do know is that his incarceration is unjust, the military courts are unconstitutional (with regards to the American constitution), and that his gag order speaks volumes of his treatment in Guantanamo Bay.
By placing such an onerous gag order on Hicks, it makes it seem that the American military have something to hide. Personally, I am hoping that Hicks breaks the gag order (though, I do admit, I don’t face the prospect of seven years imprisonment). I would imagine that enforcing that gag order, if Hicks was to speak to the media when (and if) he gets back to Australia, would be a political nightmare. Indeed, it would seem to run against many democratic rights that Australian’s allegedly have.
Hick’s military lawyer is quoted as saying, “Major Mori told the ABC: “He could potentially be brought back to Guantanamo to serve it. I hope that doesn’t happen. I hope the media respects that he’s under oath, under obligation not to talk to media, and they don’t try to set him up for failure.” (see here). My initial question is, under oath to whom? Himself? Under what jurisdiction? How does this jurisdiction extend to Australia? (Note, I am not very familiar with the details of his hearing the other day, these are just initial comments).
The extension of the order to Hick’s father is also somewhat ridiculous. Surely, this is simply not right.
Leave a Reply