"Fair Go For David"
holds first public meeting in Adelaide

by Bob Briton

A diverse group gathered in a church hall in the Adelaide suburb of 
Prospect last week for what turned out to be an informative and thought-
provoking session. The subject of the meeting was the detention by the US 
military of former Adelaide resident David Hicks at their notorious 
facility at Guantanamo in Cuba. David is accused of being a member the Al-
Qaida organisation and is facing penalties which include a potential death 
sentence. The immediacy and seriousness of the situation was underlineded 
by the presence of David's father, Terry.

Also leading the discussion were group spokesperson Trudy Dunn and 
solicitor representing David, Stephen Kenny.

Trudy gave an overview of David's case, describing how the troubled 
teenager found himself working as a horse trainer in Japan, then 
volunteering to fight alongside the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army in 
Yugoslavia and ultimately being captured while a soldier for the Taliban 
Government in Afghanistan last December.

The facts of David Hicks' case, including his conversion to Islam, have 
been widely reported but very little effort has been made by the media in 
defence of his basic human rights to either due process under US law or 
treatment as a prisoner of war according to the Geneva Convention.

The Australian press has maintained discipline and fallen in behind 
President Bush's edict that "you are either with us or you are for the 
terrorists".

There appears to be a similar lack of concern in mainstream circles that 
ASIO could be about to become a fully-fledged secret police organisation — 
also allegedly being done in the name of combatting terrorism.

Stephen Kenny went into quite some detail about the present status of the 
case. David is being held pursuant to a military order given by President 
George W Bush who has the power to determine if there is reason to believe 
a person is a member of al-Qaida or other terrorist organisation.

He has also set down that the selected group of captured combatants will be 
held at Guantanamo (outside the jurisdiction of the US legal system) and 
that their cases will be considered by special military commissions.

The Presidential order doesn't say when the commissions are to take place. 
Normal rules of evidence do not apply. Evidence that would not be allowed 
in regular court of law may be admitted and only a two-thirds majority of 
the commission is required to arrive at a verdict.

A similar majority is needed to decide upon the sentence and, while an 
appeal to another military commission might be permitted, defendants will 
not be able take their matters to any US court, the courts of any other 
country or any international tribunal for that matter.

Stephen said that a team of lawyers, including those representing two 
English detainees have joined forces. One of their most recent moves has 
been the lodging of a writ of habeas corpus — to determine whether their 
detention is lawful or not.

Such an action is relatively rare in Australia because it is not common to 
detain a person without charging them. The legal team believes, not 
unreasonably, that four months is ample time to decide whether or not the 
captives have charges to answer.

The lawyers also maintain that the US military and Bush are violating the 
5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution that state people will not 
be subject to prolonged or indefinite periods of detention without access 
to due process before the law. It is also a clear breach of customary 
international law and the UN Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man.

None of the detainees have had access to their legal representatives.

Meanwhile, the US is preparing a prosecuting team of between 50 and 100 
lawyers headed by the Solicitor General (whose wife was killed in the 
aircraft that crashed into the Pentagon on September 12).

Clearly the defence lawyers face a formidable challenge.

Stephen also summarised the involvement of the Australian Government in the 
matter. Apparently Australian authorities (including ASIO) have had access 
to Hicks but only for the purposes of investigating his activities.

The US authorities have told the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs 
and Trade that the issue of David's legal representation has yet to be 
resolved. A recent concession by his captors will permit Australian 
consular officials to check on his medical condition but not to assist him.

While all these issues remain unresolved, the fate of David and the other 
detainees remains in the hands of seemingly arbitrary and unaccountable 
forces. The prisoners languish in cages open to the elements and under 
blazing floodlights 24 hours a day, without the protections of the Geneva 
Convention for prisoners of war and not charged with any offence.

Organisers of the meeting called on those present to contact their Members 
of Parliament and the Federal authorities that should be responsible for 
safeguarding David's rights in this situation. Fair Go for David is not 
asking the public to take a position on Hicks' allegiances or life choices.

The principle at stake, and which must be defended, is that everyone ought 
to have the same rights before the law. If we are prepared to stand by 
while the rights of someone we do not agree with are violated, we are on 
the road to having these rights denied to us.