David Hicks - Howard Government Acknowledged Hicks Wasn't Guilty of Any Crime / Proof of US-Australian Collusion

ꕤ Info/Reference SOURCE http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/hicks-claims-proof-howard-govt-interfered-20110302-1bdy0.html David Hicks Source http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/hicks-claims-proof-howard-govt-interfered-20110302-1bdy0.html Hicks claims proof Howard govt interfered March 2, 2011  AAP Former Guantanamo Bay detainee David Hicks says US documents have been released that prove the Howard government interfered in his terrorism case. Mr Hicks, who pleaded guilty to a terrorism-related charge in the US in 2007, says newly released US State Department documents show that members of the Howard government acknowledged he was not guilty of any crime and tried to think of ways to "pin him with something". He says the 50 to 60 pages of documents record "private conversations" between Howard government MPs and US State Department officials. The documents were provided this week to American journalist Jason Leopold by State Department employees. "They're private conversations ... between Australian politicians, the Liberal Party and the US State Department officials, people in the Pentagon and whoever was involved in that process in Guantanamo Bay, and it discusses my treatment and it discusses about the need to pressure me to say `guilty'," Mr Hicks told ABC Radio. Mr Hicks, an Australian citizen, was detained in Afghanistan in 2001, handed over to US authorities and detained for five years at Guantanamo Bay. In March 2007, he pleaded guilty to providing material support for terrorism and was sent to Adelaide's Yatala Prison to serve the remainder of a seven-year sentence, before being released in December of that year. On Wednesday, Mr Hicks said he "folded" to pressure to plead guilty and that the new US State Department documents showed Howard government officials acknowledged he had not committed a crime. "There's also acknowledgments from our government, the Australian government, I should be more specific and say the Howard government, acknowledgments from them and even from the US, that I'd never breached any law, I hadn't committed a crime," he said. "And there's conversations between Australian politicians and US politicians of how they can handle that: `What can we do, how can we pin him with something?'." Mr Hicks said that was when "they invented the charge `material support for terrorism'," which, he said, was not a valid crime under any legal system. Mr Hicks says he wants the Australian government to investigate his case, but adds he does not want compensation. "No, what I would really like is for the government to acknowledge that what was done to me was wrong, that my conviction in an illegal military commission is null and void and the plea agreement goes along with that. That's all I'm asking for," he said. Mr Hicks said the content of the US State Department documents would be released by Leopold in about a month's time. © 2016 AAP http://www.smh.com.au//breaking-news-national/hicks-claims-proof-howard-govt-interfered-20110302-1bdy0.html ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT I'm confused.  I thought the plea bargain was a positive event, as it got Hicks released ... and cleared the path to no election problems for the Howard government.  As in, a:  win/win. But it doesn't look like it is the positive I thought it was, when Hicks maintains he is innocent, he was pressured to plead guilty, he has documents that show the Liberal government of Australia knew he wasn't guilty of any crime, and that the Liberal government and the US colluded to find something to 'pin' on him, while US appears to have made up laws as it went along ... and Hicks spent 5 years in a US prison without charge. That means the Liberal government colluded with the Americans, to deprive an Australian of liberty -- and is party to depriving an Australian of liberty -- even though the Liberal government knew and stated in conversations with the Americans, that Hicks was not guilty of anything? Wow, this is sounding a lot like the Julian Assange (WikiLeaks publisher-journalist) scenario, where the Labor government in Australia was making false public statements about Assange's 'guilt,'  where the Australian authorities have subsequently had to acknowledge that Assange has broken no laws, where Assange (political persecution target) has been detained in Britain without charge for over 5 years now (without Australian government support), and where the US is desperate to make up some twist in the law (in this case, revising laws to redefine elements of journalism as 'espionage', I think it was) to pin something on Assange, while the US government is working towards extradition of Assange to the US ... as Britain, Sweden & Australia aid and abet the Americans. Challenge:  say above in 140 characters ... [CLICK image to enlarge] [CLICK image to enlarge] [CLICK image to enlarge] Therefore, the governments and judiciary of Sweden and Britain collude with one another to commit undemocratic & unlawful political persecution on behalf of their American 'co war criminal' ally, along with both the Labor and Liberal the governments of Australia -- his homeland. How can this be repeating itself? If I were the Hicks guy, I'd want compensation -- and plenty of it. ____________________ On Day Assange Arrested 2010-12-07 Statement by Civil Liberties Australia http://wlcentral.org/node/541 Hey, look who's Australia's High Commissioner to UK, London ...  It's the former Liberal Party Foreign Minister (1996-2007), Alexander Downer: [CLICK image to enlarge] [CLICK image to enlarge] ꕤ

David Hicks - 'Hicks Case Pushed to Suit Howard' (The Ausralian, 2008)

ꕤ Info/Reference SOURCE as marked David Hicks Source Primarily http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hicks-case-pushed-to-suit-howard/story-e6frg6nf-1111115636668 Hicks case 'pushed to suit Howard'     Geoff Elliott     The Australian     February 25, 2008 12:00AM ARTICLE SUMMARY Afghan Northern Alliance { ally of USA } sold Muslim convert David Hicks to US military for US$5,000 bounty -- 2001 - kidnapped & transferred to Guantanamo Bay -- tortured via anal examination -- 2004 - charges under new military commission system -- 2006 - ruling (Hamdan v. Rumsfeld) -- military commission unconstitutional -- US Act of Congress re-establishes military commission -- 2007 - desperate to get out of Guantanamo, accepts plea bargain -- accepts 9mths remainder of 7-year sentence -- precluded from media contact -- govt delayed his release until 2007 Aust. election -- by 2006 - Hicks 5 years detention without charge -- Col. Morris Davis -- Chief prosecutor, Bush admin Guantanamo tribunals -- says political interference -- by Bush admin & Howard govt (Col. Morris Davis)  -- William 'Jim' Haynes, seeks a 'how soon' on charges -- Pentagon's general counsel: William 'Jim' Haynes -- controversial figure -- tight with US VP Dick Cheney -- 2002 - endorsed military & CIA  -- use of 'enhanced' enhanced interrogation (ie torture) -- incl. water-boarding (simulated drowning) -- waterboarding regarded as torture by many legal experts -- At time of Hayes request: -- prosecution only had Military Commission Act in place -- no manual for military commissions -- no regulations for trial by military commissions -- no convening authority (to oversee tribunal process) -- Supreme Court had overturned military commission trial -- rules for military comm. trials subsequently rewritten -- Hayes request -- only sense in context of political environment in Australia -- Australia PM John Howard in press -- Howard making it clear Hicks had to be charged by Feb. -- US prosecution was getting pressured -- also, Dick Cheney was due to visit Australia at end February -- thus clear to prosecutor: -- Hicks was 'top-agenda item' with PM Howard -- Dick Cheney goes to Australia:  Hicks was charged -- pushing train out of station before all track was laid -- phone calls:  Hayes in Australia to Col. Davis, prosecutor -- PM Howard wanted Hicks settled:  difficult election -- sore point for Col. Davis -- Hicks Taliban terror training manual -- Col. Davis:  Australia's Taliban was no innocent abroad -- Col. Davis pro:  10 years prison plea deal -- Hicks case: -- disturbing signs of political interference from Haynes -- ignored because Hayes not in Col. Davis chain of command -- but:  2007 -- Pentagon reigns in independence of military lawyers -- change in tribunal oversight, 4 Oct 2007 -- Hayes put in charge of tribunal process -- political appointment Hayes opinions = prosecution orders -- Colonel Davis resigned & turned whistleblower -- not just political interference -- concern evidence obtained via torture at military court -- Col. Davis wanted no part in that -- Col. Davis gave up potential gains for clear conscience -- Col. Davis expected to be 'swiftboated' [CLICK IMAGE to enlarge] [CLICK IMAGE to enlarge] Meanwhile, back in Australia: -- PM Howard & his cabinet ministers deny political fix -- PM Howard & Foreign Minister Alexander Downer -- often misrepresented Hicks plea deal as 'agreement'  -- ie between Col. Davis & Hicks' military lawyer -- (Maj. Michael Mori) -- Col. Davis had no knowledge of deal -- Hicks deal struck behind prosecutor Col. Davis back -- between Major Mori -- & convening authority:  Susan Crawford -- Crawford deputised -- Brigadier Gen. Tom Hemingway to strike deal -- Brigadier Gen. Hemingway rejects political fix conclusion -- Brigadier Gen. Hemingway:  retired May 2011 -- Hemingway denies approach by Bush admin / VP office -- Col. Davis says Hemingway negotiated:  'a terrible deal' -- Col. Davis says:  any reasonable person: -- looking at timeline could conclude Hicks trial was rigged -- look at:  whole chronology -- impetus to help out PM John Howard -- impetus to make problem for PM Howard go away quickly -- problem went away in March 2007 'The Australian' -- asked Pentagon for a response (in a lengthy email) -- charting Colonel Davis's chronology -- General Hemingway, spox Jeffrey Gordon: merely disputes "the assertions made by Colonel Davis." Source Primarily http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/hicks-case-pushed-to-suit-howard/story-e6frg6nf-1111115636668 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hicks ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- COMMENT Got curious about Hicks.  Everyone probably knows all about him. I don't know anything about him, because I wasn't interested. Noticed Northern Alliance (the US allies) sold him.  Came across Northern Alliance the other day.   From what little I know so far, Northern Alliance sound despicable. It looks like the Hicks thing was politically exploited by the Liberal government? Need to come back to this.  Too sleepy to read now. ---------------------- ꕤ ---------------------- If I understand correctly, the Howard (Liberal) government in Australia was able to make things 'go away' (ie the settlement of the Hicks matter), & the incentive for the Australian politicians was political expediency:  ie need to present well in a difficult forthcoming election - and political friends in the US obliged? ꕤ