Hypocrites breaking our law at every turn
Robert Richter
Melbourne Age February 18, 2007
PHILIP Ruddock is a hypocrite when parading his Amnesty International membership. He pretends to give a toss for the organisation and the principles for which it stands: the rule of law, freedom from arbitrary arrest and punishment, freedom from torture, opposition to the perversion of accepted civilised notions of justice and the obligations he owes to those notionally under his protection. Instead, he has publicly and shamefully betrayed all of these precepts.
He is a liar when he pretends concern for David Hicks' fate. His protestations about Australia's efforts to secure a speedy trial for Hicks cross the line of decency when we consider that Hicks is, after five years, not charged with any offence. Nor is he subject to the jurisdiction of any lawfully constituted court of justice. We know he has not committed any offences against Australian law. Our A-G says so. We also know that he does not stand charged with any known crime against US law. So how is it that the Attorney-General has not demanded the return of Hicks to the country that owes him protection as a matter of law?
It is because the A-G has publicly prostituted his duties to the law - and to those he owes a duty of protection - in the service of his political masters in the government he serves.
I say this without cover of privilege and challenge him to sue for defamation and take the risk of the facts emerging in any litigation. Cabinet solidarity is one thing; his mealy-mouthed public utterances on the subject are another. He should at least have the decency to stay silent rather than seek to defend and advance the indefensible.
He is, when last I looked, the Attorney-General. That means he is the first law officer of the Commonwealth. It is his primary obligation as Attorney-General - not as a politician, which he discharges in the hurly-burly of politics as an ordinary MP - to transcend the lies and evasions of politicians intent on holding on to power, and to discharge his duties to the law and the constitution: to protect and uphold the rights and liberties of, as well as enforce duties by, citizens of this country.
His utterances about David Hicks are damp-squib lies and deceptions, as are those of his political masters John Howard and of Australia's-face-to-the world, Alexander Downer.
When I became a citizen of Australia, I believed that as part of my pledging allegiance I also acquired the protection of my country at home and abroad. I can no longer believe in the latter while people like Ruddock, Howard and Downer are custodians of such protections. Nor can other Australians. Messrs Ruddock, Howard and Downer's pronouncements about seeking to have Hicks charged early in the new year (in front of commissions that have not yet been lawfully set up!) seem to me to be a desperate cover-up of their government's, fundamental dereliction of duty. Instead of demanding Hicks' return, they have made themselves complicit in procuring an illegal process to occur as soon as possible.
Rather than facing up to their duties to protect the fundamental rights of those subject to their theoretical protection, Ruddock , Howard and Downer are deliberately compounding the illegal actions of the American Administration by counselling and procuring an illegal process. This is a crime under our law. Instead of confessing to a wrong and doing the decent thing by trying to set it right, they are pushing ahead with "churching the whore" after the abortion. They urge the Americans to create a facade of legality for what is seen by all honest jurists as a gross violation of national and international law.
Shame on you Philip Ruddock. I say the same to your superiors and accomplices, but I pick you out because you are supposed to be the enforcing arm of law and justice in Australia, instead of the aider and abettor of the disregard of national and international law and justice.
In his latest defence of the indefensible ( 7.30 Report, February 6), Ruddock likened the serving of "draft charges" on David Hicks to being charged in Australia pending committal proceedings. He is lying. Hicks has not been charged. This can only happen with the approval of a "convening authority", which does not yet exist. Moreover, he is deliberately lying when comparing the process to what might happen in Australia because he knows that a person charged here must be brought before a court as soon as practicable - within 24 hours - or have access to habeas corpus.
As a lawyer, he knows that if the matter had been placed before an Australian court, it would be struck out as an abuse of process for a number of reasons: one of the "draft" charges is retrospective and would be struck out. The charge of attempted murder would be thrown out because, as any university law student would know, training is not an attempt to do it. You actually have to be "on the job" in trying to kill. This is so without even addressing the issues of hearsay or the use of coerced evidence, which raise other fundamental objections to what is proposed.
I used to say Ruddock bore an uncanny resemblance and presentation to an undertaker. I no longer do so because undertakers are decent, honest people doing a decent and honest job and should not be demeaned by a comparison to the indecency perpetrated by Ruddock as the frontrunner for his masters.
Shame on you all. Bring David Hicks home NOW.
Robert Richter, QC, is a Melbourne barrister.
Hicks 'coming home'
Jason Koutsoukis
Melbourne Age February 18, 2007
JOHN Howard is bowing to mounting pressure over the David Hicks debacle and is working to bring him home before this year's federal election, highly placed sources have revealed to The Sunday Age.
Attention on the Hicks case will intensify with the arrival of US Vice-President Dick Cheney on Thursday, and Prime Minister Howard is being pressed to defuse the issue.
With anger over the handling of the Hicks case growing across the community and within the ranks of the Coalition, a senior Howard Government adviser has revealed that the Prime Minister "wants this issue off the agenda before the election campaign starts".
"That means we bring him home. It is highly likely that David Hicks will be back in Australia before October and right now we are working out the politics of how we do that," the adviser told The Sunday Age.
Terry Hicks welcomed the possibility his son would return. "We can start getting the wheels in motion to get him looked at physically and mentally. At least here he'll have a chance," he said yesterday.
Mr Hicks was not surprised by the news, saying mounting public anger had turned his son's detention into a political issue forcing Mr Howard to act.
A spokesman for Attorney-General Philip Ruddock did not rule out the possibility that the Howard Government would seek Hicks' repatriation.
"We're very unhappy with the delay and we would like this matter settled as soon as possible. There are a range of options under which this can happen," Mr Ruddock's spokesman said.
"This includes a speedy resolution of the trial and the possibility that is open to Mr Hicks' counsel of accepting a plea bargain. But that is a matter for Mr Hicks' counsel and not anyone else."
Several prominent Liberal backbenchers concerned about the handling of the case were contacted by The Sunday Age yesterday and confirmed that they expected Mr Howard to seek Hicks' return before the election.
"I would be extremely surprised indeed if Mr Hicks was not home before the election," one Liberal MP said.
Another said: "Hicks is hurting us politically and John Howard knows it. Supreme political pragmatist that he is, I am certain he will eventually move to cut his losses."
A Government adviser said: "The politics on this have changed dramatically and Howard wants to clear the decks and get this issue away, but his preference is still to have Hicks charged. I think we will stick with that plan for now, but if anything goes wrong - delays, legal challenges, etc - he'll pull the trigger and decide to bring him home."
It is believed Mr Howard has confided to senior colleagues that while he remains convinced that Hicks should stand trial and be punished appropriately if convicted, further delays would make his continued detention "untenable".
US authorities expect to charge Hicks within a fortnight. He has been incarcerated without trial for more than five years at the US military base at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.
Military authorities will allege Hicks watched coverage of the September 11 terrorist attacks at a friend's house in Pakistan and expressed approval of the actions.
The prosecution will also claim that Hicks was given advanced al-Qaeda training, including a course on the meaning of jihad, and that he returned to Afghanistan the day after the September 11 attacks to report to al-Qaeda's deputy military commander.
Hicks was allegedly issued with a Kalashnikov rifle, 300 rounds of ammunition and three grenades.
The material is now before the military commission's convening authority, Judge Susan Crawford, and will be used if she decides the case has merit and Hicks should be charged.
An ACNielsen/ Age poll published last Monday found that six in 10 Australians disapproved of the handling of the case. The same poll showed that Mr Howard was trailing Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd as preferred prime minister by five percentage points, with Labor surging to a 58 to 42 per cent two-party lead.
A recent Newspoll showed that 56 per cent of Australians opposed the Government's handling of the Hicks case.
Liberal backbencher Alan Cadman told The Sunday Age of increasing complaints from constituents about the case's handling.
"Most people think he ought to come home but they do understand why that's difficult," Mr Cadman said.
"People are still concerned about whether or not he is terrorist."
West Australian senator Alan Eggleston said he was aware of significant community concern that Hicks had been held without trial for so long.
"People are starting to focus on that somewhat. I think people are very concerned about it although that might start to ease once we see charges laid," he said.
Entrepreneur Dick Smith said yesterday he would donate at least $60,000 to help cover Hicks' legal costs.
"I'm not a supporter of David Hicks. I'm a supporter of getting David Hicks some fairness, a fair trial, a fair go," he said.
Since the start of the year, Mr Howard has repeatedly expressed his unhappiness with the failure to bring Hicks to trial and said his Government was pressing the US on almost a daily basis for a speedy resolution. Asked last week about the possibility that Hicks might not be tried before the year's end, he said: "That would not be acceptable. I do not believe, on what we have been told, that that will turn out to be the case but it certainly Š would not be an acceptable situation."