Guantanamo – symbol of injustice

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
– Martin Luther King Jr., Letter from Birmingham Jail, April 16, 1963

In the past 18 months, I have written several articles on the Guantanamo Bay camp, where close to 500 detainees still remain incarcerated. In my opinion, those in detention have been withheld their rights under international law. In other words, Guantanamo Bay represents a continuing flagrant suspension of the laws and ethical norms of Western civil society by the United States.

Unlike Australia’s sycophantic deference to the US, the United Kingdom has maintained a consistent opposition to Guantanamo. Yesterday, the UK Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith gave the strongest condemnation yet. In a speech to the Royal United Services Institute, he says:

“It is time, in my view, that it should close. Not only would it, in my personal opinion, be right to close Guantanamo as a matter of principle, I believe it would also help to remove what has become a symbol to many – right or wrong – of injustice. The historic tradition of the United States as a beacon of freedom, liberty and of justice deserves the removal of this symbol.”

He goes further:

“…there are certain principles on which there can be no compromise. Fair trial is one of those – which is the reason we in the UK were unable to accept that the US military tribunals proposed for those detained at Guantanamo Bay offered sufficient guarantees of a fair trial in accordance with international standards.”

This was the justification for the extrication of all British detainees from Guantanamo Bay.

The United States is still holding an Australian, David Hicks in detention. He has been dubbed an “enemy combatant” and thus denied the rights afforded to him under the Geneva Conventions. Hicks has been held in custody since his capture in late 2001, and held at Guantanamo Bay since early 2002. The preposterous reality is that in the past four and a half years, the United States has been unable to produce enough evidence to mount a case against Hicks in even a biased “military tribunal”, tribunals that the UK is “unable to accept”.

The best that the United States can come up with as per recently parroted by White House spokesman Sean McCormack is, “but the fact of the matter is that the people there are dangerous people.” If they are so dangerous, then why can they not be brought to a fair trial and charged with their crimes?

In September 2004, barrister Lex Lasry QC, the only independent Australian lawyer present to observe the initial hearing for Hicks at Guantanamo made a conclusion that was even more powerful than the recent words of the British Attorney General. Rather than that a fair trial could not be “guaranteed”, he stated that:

“...it would be virtually impossible for … Hicks to receive a fair trial under the current arrangements.”

Despite acknowledgement by the Prime Minster of “concerns” about the US military tribunal process, the action (or rather lack of) by the Australian government when compared to the British is stark indeed. One of the justifications used by Howard against the repatriation of Hicks was:

“If they [David Hicks and Mamdouh Habib] are brought back to Australia, they go free because there is no crime under Australian law with which they can be charged.”

On consideration, surely this is a reason to bring Hicks back to Australia (Habib was released without charge after a three year detention in January 2005). As per the Prime Minister, under Australian law, David Hicks has not committed a crime and would be a free man. Despite this, the Howard Government is willing to let an Australia citizen be held indefinitely and be processed through a military tribunal that has been denounced by the majority of Western nations.

Howard and his government is worthy of the contempt and disgust of all Australians over this issue.

Source articles:
BBC: UK calls for Guantanamo closure

BBC: Full text of Lord Goldsmith's speech

The Sydney Morning Herald: Bringing Hicks home 'impossible', says Howard