That is the nature of a certain breed of polemical journalist in this country, who stand as bulwarks against the pinko tendencies of mainstream journalists (with the exception of Matt Price who is a bright shade of puce) and the strident red hue of ABC journalists. In addition to Akerman, leading practitioners of this art are Andrew Bolt, Janet Albrechtsen and Alan Jones.
(Disclaimer: there are polemicists from the other side - John Pilger, for example.)
At the very least, these people are entertaining. When in Sydney, I always make it a point to tune into Alan Jones at the earliest possible time and he never fails to disappoint me. In fact, just about my favourite radio moment ever was Jones' comment on the unfortunate demise of Steve Irwin. According to Jones - this is fair dinkum - the enduring legacy of Steve Irwin to the children of Australia was that he taught them that wild animals are not dangerous. In this context, how utterly embarrassing for Irwin that he was killed by a mere fish.
Like most newspaper columnists these days, Janet Albrechtsen (of The Australian) has a blog. Her first effort this week (18 February) was on the subject of Hicks & his mighty PR machine. She acknowledged that the US has been too slow in prosecuting the Hicks case.
But let's get a sense of balance here and recognise the unmitigated hypocrisy emanating from the "free Hicks" hecklers and harridans.
That the list of "hecklers" and "harridans" includes just about every eminent - and most non-eminent - jurist in Australia (and many overseas, such as the British Attorney-General) is beside the point. Janet, after all, has a law degree, so she knows what she's talking about. And that a goodly proportion of the Australian populace is disturbed by the circumstances of the Hick case can be entirely explained by said pinko, puce and red members of the fourth estate. And GetUp! which is running a Bring David Hicks Home campaign.
Janet states that she's concerned by the fact that we don't know the "true facts" but, like any true polemicist, she doesn't let facts - true or otherwise - stand in the way of her story. You get the impression from her blog (she doesn't actually say this but this is what she conveys - OK - I'm being a touch polemical) that Hicks was apprehended by American troops, Hicks being armed to the teeth with an AK-47, 300 rounds of ammunition and three grenades. From what has so far emerged, in fact, Hicks seems to have been captured by members of the Northern Alliance, while he (Hicks)was attempting to flee Afghanistan in a taxi, sans weapons - he'd flogged them to pay for the taxi. At the time of his capture, he was actually in every sense a non-combatant. And GetUp! is not mounting a campaign to free Hicks but a campaign to bring Hicks home - there's a difference, as we'll see below.
OK - that's enough of that - it's not the point of this entry. Rather it's the response to Janet's blog. At the time of writing there were 299 responses to Janet's blog (at the time of posting there were 345 but I'm not going back there):
1. Four respondents were what could be called "neutral".
2. Eighty three (83) supported Albrechtsen's proposition (with a goodly proportion suggesting Hicks ought to have been summarily executed at the time of his capture).
3. one person seemed to be denying that planes crashed into the twin towers at all on 9/11.
4. And 211 - that is 71% - one way or another took issue with Albrechtsen.
Of course, in one sense, then, Albrechtsen is absolutely correct: in recent times, the campaign protesting Hicks continuing detention - without valid charge, without trial - has gathered pace and force, it's crystallised opinions and galvanised effort.
What Albrechtsen misses or ignores, is this has not been so much about freeing Hicks as it is about the affront to conceptions of justice that Hicks's continuing incarceration causes reasonable people (those people who express a wish that he had been summarily executed when captured are not, in my view, reasonable people). It's the "person on the 109 tram" test, to adapt an old saying.
Goodness gracious me, Janet, even John Howard is beginning to feel affronted. I suspect that the effectiveness of campaigning by the likes of GetUp! and by Hicks' US mlitary lawyer (Major Mori?) may have something to do with the sudden onset of Howard's affront.
I think the whole thing was best summed up by "dotz of Modbury SA":
Guilty or innocent, David Hicks has been denied any semblance of justice by being detained for 5 years without trial..
And in support she quotes Winston Churchill:
The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.
Dotz's contribution was far more substantial than that of one "Andrew Bolt of Melbourne" who was apparently so moved by the power of Albrechtsen's argument that that he could merely observe "right on" in support of her views.
Careful what you wish for
Quite a few people have drawn attention to the apparently different treatment accorded American citizen John Walker Lindh, who was apprehended in Afghanistan around the same time as Hicks in late 2001(with the important distinction that Lindh was captured on the battlefield). Lindh was indicted in February 2002 by a grand jury in the US on ten charges, a number of which carried life sentences for conviction. Walker was eventually offered a plea bargain by US authorities: plead guilty to 2 charges and agree to a gag order order in order to receive a reduced sentence. In July 2002, Walker pleaded guilty to
1. Serving with the Taliban
2. Carrying weapons.
In October 2002 - less than a year after his apprehension - Walker was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment.
The charge sheets recently released in respect of Hicks detail alleged offences remarkably similar to those originally levelled against Walker.
So, I guess John Howard's prefferred template is
1. Hicks is charged with a range of offences, a number of which carry life sentences for conviction
2. Hicks is forthwith offered a plea bargain on 2 "lesser" charges - say, serving with the Taliban and carrying weapons
3. Hicks accepts and is sentenced to 20 years imprisonment, minus time served
4. Hicks is returned to Australia to serve out his sentence.
Hicks' defence to those possible charges looks a bit tricky. He appears to have volunteered in a letter to his dad information supporting the charges, and his dad went on to place that information on the public record.
John Howard's recent public comments and demeanour suggest there's something in the offing. Here's Howard on yesterday's Today program:
I don't want to speculate about what might occur except to support the remark that was made by Mr Downer yesterday, and that is that if the trial does take place quickly, as we want, then either way he could be back on Australian soil later this year.
If he's free, well as he obviously comes back, he's an Australian citizen; if he is convicted, we have an arrangement with the Americans whereby he can serve out the remainder of his term in an Australian prison.
Hicks has a history of annoying US authorities - according to one commentator "Hicks was one of the few to resist Guantanamo’s devastating mix of interrogation and isolation, and persevere, without compromise or confession, in a habeas corpus action that would later become the landmark Supreme Court case Rasul v Bush".
So, maybe he won't play ball. But it seems to me to be a classic case of Hobson's choice: he does the deal and is transferred to a somewhat more comfortable environment (in relative terms). If he doesn't, the hellish Gitmo experience cointinues indefinitely, maybe forever.
Whatever Hicks does, it's a get out of jail card for Howard, isn't it? If he does the deal, Hicks "confirms" his guilt and he's back "home" in Australia mid-year or thereabouts, albeit in custody. If he doesn't, there's really no saving some people from themselves is there?
Post script 22 February
Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has since opened up the possibility that, if there are further delays, for whatever reason, the Howard Government will move to get Hicks back to Australia pronto. This may depend on the High Court's findings on the "allowability" of control orders and such like - see here.
Post Script 23 February - How Andrew Bolt views the world of journalism
Vive la difference
No comments:
Post a Comment