Sudden fire or quiet storm?

Ever so gradually, pressure is mounting on the Australian Government to stand up to the United States over its treatment of David Hicks. Consider this. On February 7, The Australian carried news that John Howard is now critical of David Hick's indefinite detention by the US.

Prime Minister John Howard has criticised America's handling of the David Hicks' case as a handful of his backbenchers demanded the Australian terror suspect be returned home.

Mr Howard told his colleagues that the government had resolved to put a deadline on charges against Hicks and “would pursue the Americans on other timelines”.

This is a major back flip considering the Howard Government's near total silence over David Hick's treatment by the US over the past five years. What The Australian piece did not adequately convey was the obvious fact that Howard has miscalculated over Hicks and that it has taken him several years to realise that there is something very wrong about the manner in which Hicks has been dealt. Since Hicks was detained in December 2001, public sentiment has slowly started to swell in his favour, although I hazard a guess many Australians still simply do not care or even support his continued detention.

On paper, the Australian Government has always maintained that David Hicks' case should be handled in a fair and expeditious manner. But from the very moment Hicks was detained in 2001 the Government has gone to great lengths to avoid overt criticism of the United States. Even as recently as last week, there was no sign of descent from the Australian Government. Instead, we were told on 7 February 2007 that the Australian Government "welcomes the move by the United States to charge David Hicks." Remember, it has taken over five years for the United States merely to announce nominal charges against Hicks. His trial has yet to occur.

Back in September 2004, when Hicks had already been detained without charge for nearly three years, the Government said it had spoken to their American counterparts to ensure that Hicks got a fair and expeditious trial. It was already clear to Australian Government observers that the Military Commission process Hicks and Mamdouh Habib, another Australian subsequently released, were being subjected to had serious flaws. These concerns were blandly described in a press release as:

... involving operational and procedural aspects of the conduct of the Military Commission process, including the lack of agreed rules of procedure that could lead to uncertainty for both prosecution and defence in preparing cases.

The same press release assured us that Australia had "reached an understanding" with the United States that Hicks would be afforded some basic human rights protections - a presumption of innocence, a right to silence, the right to defence counsel (although this would have to be an American as an Australian could only act as 'legal consultant') and that he would not face the death penalty. Significantly, these protections were not subjected to any independent verification, which the US does not permit at Guantanamo, but was premised on some as of yet unsubstantiated belief that the US will uphold the protections it promised to afford to Hicks.

In July 2006 Attorney-General Ruddock stated:

The Australian Government has made it clear to the United States that it continues to expect appropriate procedures will be in place to ensure a fair trial.

The principle concern I have is that all the assurances that have been given to us – and there are a number of them – are honoured. And I am sure they will be.

Clearly the Government's attention has always been placed on being seen to be doing something, but nothing more than the bare minimum. In truth, the Government has always treated as inevitable that Hicks would be detained for as long as the United States cared to detain him. Nor has the Government ever taken seriously Hicks' numerous claims of being tortured and punished for speaking to legal representatives and outside observers. According to Attorney-General Ruddock there is a simple explanation for all of Hick’s complaints – he’s weak willed:

"I don't hear most people who are detained in Australia are found to be unfit to plead simply because they've been detained... Some people don't handle it well."

Such statements reflect the Government's blatant contempt for the well being of an Australian citizen. It is in the light of such statements that we must understand the Government's sudden concern for David Hicks. There are clear messages in all of this. Australians do care about Hicks. Public pressure does have an effect. And Governments are almost always the last to realise what everyone else, including cowardly bureaucrats, has known for a very long time. It has taken the Australian Government over five years to reach the very simple conclusion that David Hicks should be brought back home immediately. For David Hicks, the Government's sudden concern may be all too little too late.

For more information on David Hicks and his treatment by the Australian Government go to www.fairgofordavid.org .

UPDATE - more on the Australian Government and Hicks in this excellent piece by Julian Burnside QC.