Hicks ‘obviously innocent’ but with poor prospects
Michael Gawenda, former editor-in-chief of Melbourne's only broadsheet, The Age, and now its US correspondent, does not mince his words. He describes David Hicks, that 30 year-old British-Australian on whose behalf I and many others have argued vigorously for a fair trial or else release from Camp Delta at Guantánamo Bay, as "obviously innocent."
It is "almost certain", predicts Gawenda, that the US Congress will agree to the military tribunals the Bush Administration wants to try the tiny minority of Guantánamo inmates who have actually been charged — Hicks being among them. And the design of the 'new' tribunals will differ little, he argues, from that to which the US Supreme Court objected. Why? Because the US (and Australian) opposition are unwilling to take a principled stand; unwilling to defend the human rights of alleged terrorists for fear it would be unpopular.
The nature of human rights is that they are inherent and inalienable. That is, we are born with them regardless of our station in life, and they cannot be forfeited, regardless of what we may do in life. Yes, alleged terrorists have human rights too, as do convicted terrorists, even though they might violate the rights of others most profoundly. It is in dark times such as these that our moral fibre is most sorely tested. Human rights are of little value unless they are respected when that respect does not come easily.
An international day of protest calling for the closure of the detention facility at Guantánamo is planned for 15 July 2006 — this coming Saturday. Demonstrations will be held in the US, UK, Bahrain, Australia, Kuwait and Yemen.
David Hicks has been punished enough for his stupidity and naivety. It is time to bring him home. It is curious that the British Prime Minister immediately ensured UK prisoners were released from Guatanamo, but his staunch ally the Australian PM did not.