Ex Gitmo prisoner lodges complaint to UN

I've been following this for years. Australian citizen David Hicks was locked up in Gitmo for 5 years without trial, finally being returned to Australia after a plea deal was made in their kangaroo court. The Howard gov was in terrible shape at the time and Howard was trying to do something about this festering sore that was the whole David Hicks case. Hicks got virtually no help from Australia, with the Howard gov pretty well abandoning him and labelling him "the worst of the worst". 

The American gov kept on with the same rhetoric, both gov's leaving him there to rot. Bush set up the military commissions, which were a serious abandonment of proper justice. It was only when American citizens realised that they too could be caught up in the same net and shipped off to Gitmo, with all their Constitutional rights abandoned, that Americans themselves suddenly became very concerned about these laws. In short, it was good enough to do that to people from other countries, but not to Americans. Strange logic indeed.

Today in the latest instalment to this whole sorry affair, Hick's counsel to the UN Ben Saul has written a very well worded piece in support of Hicks and telling of his official complaint to the UN about the injustices done to him.

The charge on which Hicks was convicted, providing material support for terrorism, is still being challenged in the US courts by other Guantanamo detainees. It is alleged that the offence was retrospective since it was unknown to the law of war or US law before 9/11. A decision is expected at any time. 

Freedom from retrospective punishment is a sacred US constitutional right, and a human right under international law. It safeguards against arbitrary state power by preventing governments from designating their opponents as criminals after the fact. 

If the offence is knocked over in the US courts, the basis of Hicks' conviction will collapse. There are also unanswered questions of accountability facing the Australian government. In opposition, Labor attacked the Howard government for supporting Bush's military trials, arguing that they violated the laws of war, human rights and basic justice. 

Once elected in 2007, Labor went hypocritically quiet. It has rebuffed calls for an inquiry into Hicks' treatment. In the absence of domestic human rights laws, Hicks is unable to expose his mistreatment in the Australian courts. 

One avenue remains open to Hicks. In 2010 he lodged a complaint against Australia with the United Nations, alleging violations by Australia of an international human rights treaty. The committee is expected to deliver its decision soon, after hearing Australia's response. 

Hicks argues his offence was retrospective and contrary to international law. By enforcing his sentence in an Adelaide prison, Hicks believes that Australia took over responsibility from the US for his unlawful punishment. Australia detained him unlawfully under international law because his offence was retrospective and he did not receive a fair trial. 

While prisoners are often transferred to prisons in their own countries for humanitarian reasons, this must not involve prison based on a flagrant denial of justice. Australia should have done what Britain successfully did - insist that none of its citizens be prosecuted in an unfair trial at Guantanamo, and demand their immediate return home.
Link

I'll be waiting to see what the outcome of this UN committee says.  

We will never know if he was a terrorist or not. The opportunity to find out in a fair court was lost.