The best thing one can say about the process is that one day there may be a reckoning for this despicable episode, in which Australian ministers, all the way down from the Prime Minister, have been party to the commission of grave crimes under the Australian Criminal Code 1995, divisions 104 (Harming Australians Overseas) and 268D (denying a fair trial), because they have been criminally complicit under section 11.2. -- Robert Richter, QC: A trial that was uncomfortably close to Stalinist theatre

David Hicks is due in Australia by May 29 to serve nine more months. His release date is set for New Years Eve.

John Howard and his blind henchmen think they've heard the last of it. Penelope Debelle (David and Goliath saga far from over)begs to differ:

Hicks' return will cauterise the concern of those who did not like him but objected to anyone being held without trial and subjected to the US military's methods.

Says our PM, the Kaiser of Kirribilli:

He's not a hero in my eyes and he ought not to be a hero in the eyes of any people in the Australian community.

Hicks is no hero, Herr Howard. If he were a hero he would have pleaded "Not guilty." He is, instead, a pawn in the political positioning of the Bush and Howard governments. Richter again:

Hundreds of years of what constituted the rule of law have been jettisoned so that Howard, Ruddock and Downer can pretend that Hicks is off their election agenda. Forget habeas corpus. Forget retrospective legislation. Forget coerced evidence and confessions. Forget commissions in which guilt has been predetermined. Forget prosecutors being judges in their own cause.

It's worth mentioning here that Howard's favourite moniker -- Man of Steel -- translates into Russian as Stalin. Joseph Stalin's real name was Dzhugashvili. He changed it to Stalin early in his infamous career.

To wit, Richter again:

The charade that took place at Guantanamo Bay would have done Stalin's show trials proud. First there was indefinite detention without charge. Then there was the torture, however the Bush lawyers, including his Attorney-General, might choose to describe it. Then there was the extorted confession of guilt.

Whatever Hicks may have done, the theatre of a voluntary plea of guilty when the choice is "rot in hell or say it's true so you can go home" is worthy of The Grand Inquisitor. In Stalin's as well as the German show trials of the 1930s, the essence of the display was the public confession, followed by the sentence. The Iranians and al-Qaeda still practise it, but isn't that why we declared a War on Terror?

Two more comments:

It is a modern cutting out of his tongue." -- Michael Ratner of the US Centre for Constitutional Rights, on the gag order.

• • •

What an amazing coincidence that with an election in Australia by the end of the year he gets nine months, and he is gagged for 12 months from talking about it. -- Lex Lasry, QC.

Especially, as Debelle says, he has previously complained of torture:

Hicks told Judge Ralph Kohlmann he would never allege that he was mistreated while in US custody, yet he has before the British courts now a legal challenge that details alleged US military abuse. In a sworn statement Hicks says he was hit with a rifle, stepped on and sexually abused. "My head, armpits, and crotch were shaved and I was covered with a liquid," he swears in an affidavit.

"Inside the tents there were about 10 US personnel at different stations. Inside the tent, I was photographed naked and a white piece of plastic was forcibly inserted in my rectum for no apparent purpose during this process, and some of the staff joked about this procedure. The US personnel made remarks such as 'extra-ribbed for your pleasure' as the item was stuck in my rectum." Later that night, he was put on a plane to Cuba.

It's too much to hope that a Rudd government (helped along by a Democrat president) will follow Richter's lead and set up a Royal Commission into the criminal misdeeds of the Howard Government. For one thing, the list of crimes is immense; it would take years. We are literally praying for Rudd to win the election, mainly to oust Howard's credibility-free regime. If Rudd wins, it will likely be business as usual, albeit with a tad more social conscience.

Short of a Rudd Government setting up an Australian version of the Nuremberg Trials, is it possible for the legal profession to set up an inquiry of its own? Perhaps without teeth, but still legal and in some way binding? Something must be done to bring this rogue government to justice.

Additional links:
Liz Porter: Law behind closed doors
Tom Hyland: Nowhere man

-- Olney Garkle