Until or unless the allegations against Hicks and Habib are tested in court, we cannot be sure of their accuracy. We all live by the rule that, if we are accused of doing wrong, we should be tried in a court. The facts should be tested; we are entitled to lawyers to defend us and we cannot be held for lengthy periods without charge. Scarcely a radical position, one would have thought. Yet, when initial news broke about Hicks’ capture, the Howard government launched a remarkable campaign against him, one more-or-less predicated on his guilt. On 15 January 2002, attorney-general Daryl Williams declared Hicks “one of the world’s most dangerous people”, deserving of the treatment he received. Defence minister Robert Hill admitted he had no idea what law, in what country, Hicks had been broken – but agreed, nonetheless, he should be in custody. Alexander Downer explained Hicks deserved “harsh US retribution”. Asked if he thought detaining Hicks indefinitely without trial was fair, John Howard replied, “Given the circumstances of Afghanistan I think it is, yes.” Over the long years Hicks remained in Cuba, the Howard government continued to smear him, all the while dancing around the fundamental question: are Australian citizens entitled to due process or not?
Posted on: Tue, 27 Jan 2015 09:33:34 +0000