Andy Worthington writes in The collapse of Guantanamo’s military commissions
From the post:
The news that the US Court of Military Commission Review has dismissed the conviction against David Hicks, the first prisoner convicted in Guantanamo’s much-criticised military commission trial system, calls the future of the entire system into doubt. Hicks, an Australian seized in Afghanistan, had undertaken military training, although there was never any proof that he had engaged in combat with anyone, let alone US forces.
In March 2007, he accepted a plea deal in his trial by military commission, admitting to providing material support for terrorism, convinced that it was his only way out of Guantanamo, and waiving his right to appeal. In return, he received a seven-year sentence, although all but nine months were suspended. He was repatriated the following month, and was released in December 2007. Since then, he has fought to clear his name, and has finally been vindicated in a ruling that, importantly, also overturned the waiver against lodging an appeal.
Defence lawyer criticises Guantanamo trialThis is the fourth humiliation for the military commissions, which have only reached results in the cases of eight men in total since they were first revived in November 2001.
The Office of Military Commissions is composed of military officers who are also trained in law. I mention that to make it clear the court that dismissed the charges against David Hicks was a military court.
The terrorist fear mongers failed to account for one thing with military trials at Guantanoamo: There are any number of judges, both civilian and military, that adhere to traditional views of due process and rights as embodied in the United States Constitution, its laws and legal traditions.
The dismissal of charges against David Hicks for him, other detainees at Guantanamo, but more importantly, it is another indication that the rule of law isn’t dead in the United States. Looking forward to its full return.