Quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
quote:
Originally posted by Micah Foehammer:
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Johnny, show me the trial transcripts that prove his guilt or give it a rest.
|
Yorick, do the same for the folks in charge of the prisoners at Gitmo or give THAT a rest. [/QUOTE]Er no... it's proven that they're holding Hicks without trial, want to use evidence gleaned from torture, and have held him as an "enemy combatant" to get around Geneva convention rules. That's all very much proven Micah. [/QUOTE]We're just going to have to agree to disagree on what is proven and what isn't in that case. I not going to change my mind on what I think has been proven and neither will you. So let's just leave it at that on the issue of what is fact, what is proven and what is conjecture.
As to the issue of Hicks trial: if you want him tried then allow the system to work as it is intended. (Apolgies for the length of this but I can't find one link to list all of this - so I had to cut and paste)
Here's the time line on the charges, trial dates and pertinent court rulings (TL first brought this up at the Oasis but I've tweaked it a bit - added some details):
Hicks was captured in late November, early December 2001 (news reports vary slightly) by Northern Alliance forces near Kunduz Afghanistan.
In April of 2002, he was turned over to US Military and was transferred to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba where he has been incarcerated.
In June of 2002, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed a habeas petition on behalf of his son, Yaser Esam Hamdi, a U.S. citizen, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.
In June 28, 2004, The supreme court ruled in favor of Hamdi. Eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a *U.S. citizen* without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review.
In August 2004 Hicks was charged by the US, with the charges to be heard before a military tribunal. In August 2004 pre-trial hearings commenced, followed by further hearings in November 2004. Hicks's trial was initially set for January 10, 2005.
In July 2004, Salim Ahmed Hamdan was charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism. He subsequently filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that the military commission convened to try him was illegal and lacked the protections required under the Geneva Conventions and United States Uniform Code of Military Justice. (slightly out of sequence as the charges against Mahdan were filed before the charges against Hicks ...)
On November 9 2004, After reviewing Hamdan's habeas petition, Judge James Robertson of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in Hamdan's favor, finding that the United States could not hold a military commission unless it was first shown that the detainee was a prisoner of war.
On July 15, 2005, a United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit three-judge panel of Arthur Raymond Randolph, John G. Roberts, Jr. and Stephen F. Williams, unanimously reversed the decision of the District Court.
On 7 November 2005, the Supreme Court issued a writ of certiorari to hear the case.
On 29 June 2006, the Supreme Court announced its decision . The Court reversed the ruling of the Court of Appeals, holding that President Bush did not have authority to set up the war crimes tribunals and finding the special military commissions illegal under both military justice law and the Geneva Convention.
The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006 (Oct. 17, 2006) Drafted in the wake of the Supreme Court's decision on Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the Act's stated purpose is to "facilitate bringing to justice terrorists and other unlawful enemy combatants through full and fair trials by military commissions, and for other purposes. Legal and Constitutional scholar Robert A. Levy commented that the Act denies habeas rights only to aliens, and that U.S. citizens detained as "unlawful combatants" would still have habeas rights and could challenge their indefinite detention.
So for the last two years the delays have ALL been about trying to resolve which jurisdiction Hick's case SHOULD be tried in, and not some attempt by the US government to hold Hicks indefinitely without trial. While you may not LIKE the fact that it took two years, that is the system that we work in. Sorry its not to your liking.
Additionally, Hicks defense team was simultaneously exploring an attempt to have Hicks declared a British citizen and obtain his release in that fashion.
In September 2005, it was realised that Hicks may be eligible for British citizenship through his mother, as a consequence of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
On 5 July 2006, Hicks was registered as a British citizen, albeit only for a few hours—Home Secretary John Reid personally intervened to revoke Hicks' new citizenship almost as soon as it had been granted, citing a provision of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 allowing the Home Secretary to "deprive a person of a citizenship status if the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
Some other interesting facts:
As of November 2005, 76 detainees had been transferred to the custody of other governments, including the United Kingdom, France, Russia, Spain, Sweden, Sudan, Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan. Interestingly, even the American government has exempted its nationals from the process.
Regrettably for David Hicks, the Australian government has been exceptional in this respect. The Australian Prime Minister confirmed in July 2005 that he was ‘satisfied that the military commission process in relation to David Hicks…will provide a proper measure of justice’. It is perhaps unsurprising then (though somewhat curious) that one strategy employed by David Hicks’ lawyers has been to attempt to obtain British citizenship for Mr. Hicks.
Like I said before, this is a matter for your own government to deal with. They just haven't had any spine for it, until just this past Tuesday, November 28:
http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchas...n-of-hicks.php
[ 11-30-2006, 10:04 AM: Message edited by: Micah Foehammer ]