You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: WoT
Hicks 'could face death penalty'
2006-08-26
SUSPECTED Australian terrorist David Hicks could be sentenced to death if a new military commission system passes through the United States Congress, his military lawyer has claimed.

US Major Michael Mori said the new US legislation would allow the presiding military officer to order capital punishment for Hicks. However, the Australian Government today said it had received assurances from the United States that it would not seek the death penalty.

Hicks, 31, has been in US custody in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, since January 2002, a month after he was captured fighting among Taliban forces in Afghanistan. The Adelaide-born Muslim convert is accused of having trained with Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda terror network and has been charged by US authorities with aiding the enemy, attempted murder and conspiracy.

He was to have been tried by a military commission, but the US Supreme Court has ruled the commissions unlawful, forcing the US Administration to revamp the process.

Major Mori said the Australian Government had previously secured concessions from the military prosecutors office protecting Hicks from the death penalty, but the same concessions would not automatically continue under the new system.

The system under consideration includes provisions that preclude US authorities from agreeing to any concessions, he said. "That old system is gone, and so there can be no more concession, it has to be looked at anew under this new legislation that may pass," Major Mori told ABC radio.

"The new commission will have the power to judge the death penalty, and that raises serious concerns. "And unfortunately we fear that they may try to prosecute David and subject him to the death penalty."

Major Mori said his client's case had been dragged back to 2003, when they began battling against the old military commission, and he faced another long stint in custody. "It took almost over two years just to get to the Supreme Court to rule it as illegal," he said. "And unfortunately, if the Australian government goes along again with an unfair system, they're condemning David Hicks to another two and a half years of detention at Guantanamo."
Guess you should have taken the old deal, eh counseler?
Speaking at a candlelit vigil for Hicks in Adelaide earlier this week, Major Mori said it would take at least two years to mount a legal challenge to the new system if the Australian Government did not act first to bring his client home.

He urged the Government to re-evaluate their position considering Hicks had been in custody for almost five years. "Let him give him back to his family, let him get on with his life as a jihadi," Major Mori told ABC radio.

But a spokesman for the Attorney-General Philip Ruddock said the Australian Government had been assured the US Government would not seek the death penalty for Hicks. He said although the new legislation may allow the death penalty, the US government's undertaking would be reflected in any trial of Hicks. "We've received all sorts of assurances relating to the trial of Mr Hicks, one of which is the US won't seek the death penalty," the spokesman said to AAP. "Of course, when they introduce the legislation they may have death penalty provisions in there, but our concern is that Mr Hicks won't be subjected to the death penalty and we've been given repeated assurances to that effect."
Posted by:tipper

#6  #3: I hate to break this to you, but spelling violations have no "carry-over" constraints, Redneck Jim.

Yeah, Ive been doing that a lot lately, maybe time for new glasses.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-08-26 18:56  

#5  I believe Redneck is referring to 'ex post facto law' which is Constitutionally prohibited. However, there was no precedent for Nuremberg which the US participated in and who's entire proceedings were 'ex post facto'. Now the SCOTUS ruled in 1946 in Yamashita versus Styer that the tribunals were legit. That resulted in several deaths, including Yamashita's. What the recent SCOTUS ruling governed was the composition of the tribunals as authorized by the legislative branch, not the specific crimes and their punishments as previously ‘executedÂ’.
Posted by: Omating Ebbinese4222   2006-08-26 10:20  

#4  When I first saw the headline, I was worried about my relatives in West Virginia. But then I read the first sentence and realized that they were referring to some Australian guy.
Posted by: WhiteCollarRedneck   2006-08-26 10:02  

#3  I hate to break this to you, but spelling violations have no "carry-over" constraints, Redneck Jim.
Posted by: Zenster   2006-08-26 08:45  

#2  Laws are always passed with a "Geandfather" clause, that means that crimes commirred before the law was passed are not subject to the new law, they must be prosecuted under the old laws then in effect at the time of the crime's commission.

This prevents "Revenge" laws from being implemented.

Example, Okay we have to do something about all those repeat Jaywalkers, lets pass a law that Jaywalking convictions carry the Death Penalty, no appeal, now search the files for past-convicted Jaywalkers and Hang them.

Nope, can't do that.
Posted by: Redneck Jim   2006-08-26 08:29  

#1  wasn't he claimed as "suicidal" by dear old Pops Hicks? Give him a razor to shave with
Posted by: Frank G   2006-08-26 08:29  

00:00