gupper said:Just because something is different doesn't make it 'acceptable' or 'not our business'. Just as the British stood up for Poland in 1939 because Hitler represented a wider threat to humanity, so too should the democratic West take a stand against practices that are nothing short of barbaric. And to go in hard on behalf of someone with views as obnoxious as Hicks' seems a poor application of compassion in my view.
Of course Abu Graib and other such instances of Western barbarism show that cruelty is not the preserve of the Taliban. Clearly it is present within human nature rather than peculiar to any one ethnic or religious group. I would argue though, that a freer press and stronger mechanisms for redress of such wrongs exist within Western societies and also that assistance to reformist elements within repressive cultures should be strongly encouraged. Overall, therefore, I am not one of those who subscribes to cultural relativism which (unless I have misunderstood you) is what you offer by way of dismissal of my earlier argument. Surely there are certain inalienable human rights (like the right of women to education and the vote etc) that should be vigorously defended by Western societies. We in the West have the opportunity to apply pressure on behalf of those denied basic freedoms and should not feel constrained to do so on the grounds that 'they do things differently there'.
Overall, though, what bemuses me most about the Hicks' campaign is how some have become so morally indignant on his behalf when there was no comparable outpouring of pity - let alone a rally - on behalf of victims of the Taliban - whose reign of terror David Hicks volunteered to support.
Bring him back for a fair trial by all means but I'm a bit tired of the lionizing of this 'poor, wronged boy' by some sections within society.
Freeballinginawetsuit said:'LOL, but do the Arab nations want to live the western way, seems not to be the case in Iraq. Gee Gupper, we cant even get it right with our own indiginous landowners her in OZ.'
After the outbreak of the 'War on Terror' in 2001, enemy combatants captured in Afghanistan by American forces were sent to Guantanamo Bay. Dubbed the 'worst of the worst', among them was an Australian, David Hicks. Tonight we're going to speak to the man charged with his defence.
ANDREW DENTON: Will you please welcome Major Michael Mori. Welcome to the show. Can we clear something up from the start? Your actual name is Dante?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Dante, yes.
ANDREW DENTON: Wow. Which is kind of appropriate considering what you've been going through in the legal system.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I think I'm on, like, the 10th circle.
.......
..........
ANDREW DENTON: When you were working at Hawaii and you got asked to be a defence counsel on the Military Commissions, that was 2003. Did you see it then as an interesting career opportunity?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I thought it would be something new to be involved with, obviously. I thought I was going to be involved with something that operated very much like a court martial, they were going to use military prosecutors, military defence lawyers, have military judges, and be doing pretty much what I had been doing, except we were going to trying law of war violations. So I saw it as a new challenge.
ANDREW DENTON: But you really hadn't had a lot of experience in international law at that time, had you.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: No, no, and, again, stepping into it, I thought I was I going to be involved in court martials, I have plenty of criminal experience dealing with court martials, and that's the laws we would be using. Unfortunately, what I found out that we were in something totally different, something completely made up and resurrected from 1942.
ANDREW DENTON: Which is Military Commissions?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Military Commissions.
ANDREW DENTON: Did you know anything about those?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Nothing, nothing. I had no specialised training in the law of war, I had no specialised training in international law, and so once I get there I realised I really wasn't trained to be involved in this process.
ANDREW DENTON: The Military Commissions in 1942 you're referring to were set up in response to Germans who'd come to America to commit acts of sabotage and needed to be tried.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Yes.
ANDREW DENTON: And they were set up specifically for those. The Military Commission process you've been through here with David Hicks, you've since come to describe them as: "Show trials set up for political purposes, not legal ends." What's brought you to that conclusion?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: What you found out was, the people that created the system are the same people that were responsible for fighting the war in Afghanistan, setting up and choosing Guantanamo as the detention centre, approving interrogation techniques and being in charge of the interrogations that were going. So what you was a system of, sort of like, the investigators and the gaolers also being in charge of the supposed trial system. There was no independent check and balance on it. Unfortunately they needed to set up a system that would justify what they had already done.
ANDREW DENTON: What is the key difference between a Military Commission and a court martial, the system you were expecting?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I think it's the independence, the independence of a judge, a judiciary that is in control. Once someone is charged, the independent judge takes control, and that goes from both the trial level and through the appeal process. In the Commission system, it was set up - they created this person, sort of an appointing authority, and I think in Australia maybe more like a DPP. Yet that individual - if I made a motion to dismiss a charge, it would go not to the presiding officers who were on it, but it would have to go to the appointing authority. So it would be like letting the DPP rule on defence motions here in Australia, and that's not a fair system that anyone can support.
ANDREW DENTON: What are the charges actually laid against David Hicks?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Right now he's not charged at all. Obviously the system was thrown out.
ANDREW DENTON: Sure.
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: The charges that they'd come up with before was a charge of conspiracy and attempted murder by an unprivileged belligerent, that they made up, and aiding the enemy.
ANDREW DENTON: "An unprivileged belligerent"? Meaning what?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I don't know what they mean. They made it up.
ANDREW DENTON: So you're his defence counsel...
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Yes.
ANDREW DENTON: ...And you can't even define what the term 'unprivileged belligerent' means. How do you defend that?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Well, their view was, everybody on the Taliban side. Anybody on the Taliban side was a war criminal because they resisted the invasion of their country. I didn't quite understand that. Then it was, as you heard the administration, their position was, "Well they didn't wear proper uniforms." So I started thinking about that. I said, "What about the Northern Alliance? What about the CIA they were fighting in Afghanistan? They weren't wearing proper uniforms." So it really can't be a crime and it's not a crime, but they had to try to fabricate something.
.........
ANDREW DENTON: Do you accept that the US Government has the right to try David Hicks?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: I accept that they have the right to try anybody that violated the law of war of in a fair system. That's really what I've been asking for, for David Hicks since I got involved, "Give us a court martial." We could have gone to trial a long time ago, but that would have provided him actual rights and they wouldn't have been able to predict and control the outcome.
ANDREW DENTON: When did you first meet David?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: December of 2003.
ANDREW DENTON: What was your first impression of him?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: He just struck me as an Aussie. He's got that heavy accent. At that point in time he was really focused on basic needs. The food he was getting was not adequate, he was being held in isolation, he wasn't being given access to sunlight. So you could see that he was a person that was really focusing on his just basic needs.
ANDREW DENTON: You said, I've read, that you felt some similarity between you and David. What was that?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Well, I mean obviously David didn't ever finish the ninth grade, you know, but he had two kids, he worked hard, his relationship broke up there and he started wandering. He wanted to do something more with his life, and guess I didn't do too well in my first go at college and my drastic change in my life was to enlist in the Marine Corps. He found a different adventure.
ANDREW DENTON: It was quite an adventure. I'll get to that a bit later. We have a picture here of a solitary confinement cell at Guantanamo, which is where David spent a fair bit of his time. Can you give me some idea of the conditions he lives in and what a day is like for him?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: You pretty much see the cell right there. It's just a cement room. He's in his cell until they wake him up to give him his morning meal. He gets his noon meal and his dinner meal. Sometime during the day, maybe during daylight hours, he'll be offered an opportunity for an hour to go out to a large, you know, chain link fence, pen, to have an hour of exercise. Besides that, he sits in his cell. When I last saw him he was allowed to have three books, and once a week they came around with a cart and gave him one book a week.
ANDREW DENTON: I know you tried to arrange books for him. /....
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: ...we brought him a lot of books to read. Some got through, some didn't get through. They wouldn't let us give him 'Presumed Innocent', I'm not sure why. 'To Kill a Mockingbird Bird, 'The Fatal Shore' never got to him, but we've been able to give him a lot of Charles Dickens. He likes Charles Dickens.
ANDREW DENTON: He's spent a considerable period of time not just in isolation, but in isolation without sunlight. Is that correct?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Yes.
ANDREW DENTON: What does that do to a person?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: It's not very healthy, psychologically, for them. Just that whole, sort of, depriving someone of the basic stimuli. When I saw him, that really was all he could focus on, was trying to get out. We worked, and the Australian Consular was very helpful, in Washington DC, in getting that change and in getting him out of isolation. That's why I don't understand, now that the US has put him back in isolation, why they're accepting it now, when it was not tolerable a year or so ago.
ANDREW DENTON: How long was he in those conditions with no sunlight?
MAJOR MICHAEL MORI: Eight months.
(THIS INTERVIEW WAS 14AUGUST, 4 MONTHS AGO)
etcetc
... etc etc this goes on for pages.
Yes, it deters me from going overseas or listening to, talking to or looking at an American.Happy said:Actually making posts of this treatment, might prevent some souls taking his path in the future.
In other words - His fate could work as deterrent for others.
2020hindsight said:btw FBW, I dont think a military court martial would even be a problem for MAJ Mori - just that the idea of the "DPP" being also the judge ( as he explains for "custom-designed military commissions" etc ) .
Excerpt :- "That's really what I've been asking for, for David Hicks since I got involved, "Give us a court martial." We could have gone to trial a long time ago, but that would have provided him actual rights and they wouldn't have been able to predict and control the outcome."
http://www.abc.net.au/tv/enoughrope/transcripts/s1709428.htm
Andrew Denton interviewing Maj Michael Mori.
From some of these posts my guess is that people are "shooting from the hip here" - (no pun to David Hicks intended)
If you go to this ABC website - you can (either) read the lot - as I have copied below and in the attached pdf file -
OR hear the full interview,
OR watch the first bit as a video.
FBW - I'll make a bet with you that Mori is forced to resign after this trial.Freeballinginawetsuit said:What a fantastic read 20/20, its only re-inforced my opinions
This seems like rather an over-reaction. Can't quite see how it is different from an American saying they would never want to listen to , talk to, or look at an Australian, on the basis of David Hicks' voluntary involvement with the Taliban.chops_a_must said:Yes, it deters me from going overseas or listening to, talking to or looking at an American.
Because you can be arrested and locked up for doing nothing. Just on a suspicion of doing something.Julia said:This seems like rather an over-reaction. Can't quite see how it is different from an American saying they would never want to listen to , talk to, or look at an Australian, on the basis of David Hicks' voluntary involvement with the Taliban.
Guppy: You make some good points. Thank you.
Julia
Hi Kennas,kennas said:I can't believe anyone is sticking up for this pathetic traitor. He should rot away in Guantanamo for another 20+. Lets not bring him back just to be a burdon on our taxpayers. Justice is being served.
Actually not, maybe you should find out what he was doing in Kosovo, and what we were doing in Kosovo.MalteseBull said:this guy was against us in the fight on terrorism
chops_a_must said:I gave up a room for an Afghan refugee for a while, and am a supporter of Hicks.
Tosspot.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?