Hicks conviction 'could be overturned'

Asguard · Jun 13, 2008

Hicks conviction 'could be overturned'

By Jason Om and N America correspondent Kim Landers

ABC NEWS

Posted 3 hours 46 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 37 minutes ago

A Supreme Court decision in the United States may eventually lead to David Hicks's terrorism-related conviction being struck out.

Five out of nine judges ruled that detainees at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba now have the right to challenge their detention in US civilian courts.

The lawyer for the former detainee David Hicks, David McLeod, says detainees can now contest the legality of the military commission process.

The conviction of David Hicks is the only one secured by the military commission system so far and it was the result of a plea deal.

Mr McLeod says that conviction would be invalid if any future court decision ruled against the commissions.

"If the Supreme Court eventually rules that the military commission process is unlawful then it would follow that any conviction recorded against him by that unlawful process falls away," Mr McLeod said.

The Supreme Court ruling leaves a legal and political mess in the waning months of the Bush administration.

It finds that the terrorist suspects do have rights under the Constitution because they are in US custody, overturning the administration's hope that keeping the alleged Al Qaeda members at the US naval base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba would also keep them out of the US legal system.

Outrage

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham is outraged.

"Al Qaeda will be given the same rights as an American citizen, something we didn't do for the Nazis," he said.

Commander Suzanne Lachelier represents Ramzi Bin al Shibh, one of the alleged September the 11th co-conspirators, who appeared in court for the first time last week.

"I felt like some of my hope is restored and that maybe tripartite democracy really works," she said.

"This is one of those decisions that's going to be read by law students for years to come," she said.

But Ms Lachelier was unable to say whether there were now grounds for releasing her client, saying she had only seen the decision, and not the various other associated documents, including some classified documents.

Enormous practical questions remain, such as whether terrorism suspects challenging their detention would get to see classified evidence against them or whether they could call witnesses, including members of the US military.

There is also confusion over whether this ruling applies to detainees like alleged September 11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who are facing trial, or just to those men who have never been charged, but remain behind bars.

Evidence tainted

Pardiss Kebriaei, a lawyer with the Centre for Constitutional Rights, helps represent six of the Guantanamo detainees and says the Government may be reluctant to defend some of the challenges to the detainees' detention because the evidence they will need to rely on has been tainted.

"Much of the intelligence that the Government has has probably been tainted in some way or another by coercion and torture," she said.

"So I think that whatever statements or information they have includes that kind of flawed, corrupted evidence and that the Government is not going to want to stand before a judge and actually present that as a legitimate basis for detaining people. So I think this decision will probably result in the release, hopefully soon, of a lot of the men who the Government never had any intention of charging."

President George W Bush says he will abide by the Supreme Court ruling.

But he is also suggesting new legislation might be needed so he can assure the American people he is doing everything he can to protect them.

Complicating factors

Eugene Fidell, President of the National Institute of Military Justice, says there are so many complicating factors which will influence what the Bush administration does next.

"This administration has shown itself to have a complete tin ear on these issues. It's now dealing with an increasingly hostile and restive congress. There's a presidential election coming up. Other than that it has a clear path," he said, indicating that the resulting legal mess would end up with the next US administration.

"That's correct. And that's probably the best thing that could happen so that a new team can take a fresh look at it and decide what the meaning of life is here."

Republican nominee John McCain is clearly worried.

"It obviously concerns me. These are unlawful combatants. They are not American citizens. But it is a decision the Supreme Court has made. Now we need to move forward. As you know I always favoured closing of Guantanamo Bay and I still think that we ought to do that," Senator McCain said.

President George W Bush and the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama also say they support shutting down Guantanamo but there is no clear consensus on where the detainees should go.

viewed 13/06/08 at 15:29
Click to expand...

So bush is unhappy but coping it on the chin
Hicks could end up suing the australian goverment for his incarteration it australia and for loss of income over his story. Personally i dont belive procides of crime laws should never have been used against him for telling his story about how he was treated in GB.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Syzygys · Jun 14, 2008

hehe, so let's repeat, why do you delete/lock other's thread on open cases but you can start threads about them?

And who cares about this local issue??Apperently we don't...Hipocrata!!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Mod Note: No, let's not repeat. There is a prescribed procedure for complaining about moderation, and it would behoove members to follow that process once in a while. Regardless, don't bring this crap to EM&J.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Asguard · Jun 14, 2008

basically i locked the other thread because its before a jury. This however is a case that has been decided in the supreem court of the US and any overturning of hicks conviction would be because the supreem court of the US found that the way he was convicted (ie the millartry commissions) was illegal. I dont belive juries are used in these sorts of cases which means there is no reason NOT to speculate

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Syzygys · Jun 14, 2008

To stay on topic, I don't think there is such a thing as unlawful combatant. This is a legal term what was made up by the Bush administration...

Log in or Sign up

Hicks conviction 'could be overturned'

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Hicks conviction 'could be overturned'

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

Syzygys As a mother, I am telling you Valued Senior Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches