Father of Australian Guantánamo prisoner speaks to the WSWS

David, who turned 30 on August 7, is due to face a resumed Pentagon military tribunal hearing on charges of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. He is one of four prisoners facing trial on trumped-up charges. The tribunals initially began their hearings in August 2004 but were forced to stop following a US District Court decision that they violated American military law and the Geneva Conventions. This decision, however, was overturned last month by a US court of appeals in Washington and the military tribunals could resume in October.

Richard Phillips: You’ve spoken by telephone recently to David. Can you give an update on his health?

Terry Hicks: David is not in real good shape. This was confirmed by the phone call and comments from his new lawyer David McLeod, who saw him for the first time a couple of months back and told me that he got the shock of his life when he visited Guantánamo Bay.

It was a strange phone call and although we were supposed to have half an hour there were so many dropouts and fadeouts that it was only about 15 minutes. I don’t know whether this was deliberate from their end or just a bad line.

David told me that he was OK but apparently his eyesight is not good. He said that he is having back trouble and the food situation is bad, even though it changes temporarily when the lawyers come. Although he’s out of solitary and there are others around, he is still kept locked up for 23 hours a day. And even when they let him out for an hour he is still shackled.

Of course the Australian government sent me a letter saying they saw him in March and that he is coping really well. This is nothing new. They always start their letters to me by saying David is in good shape but it’s just their spin.

David has survived in Cuba for over three and a half years but no matter how strong in mind or body you are it’s impossible to be in that situation and not have your health suffer. People eventually break and I think that David could go one way or the other.

RP: Since the last time we spoke, David has decided to appoint a new Australian lawyer. Why did that happen?

TH: As you probably heard, I wasn’t very happy about it. I thought that Stephen Kenny was doing a great job but David was obviously coming under pressure.

He now has two Australian lawyers—Michael Griffin in Sydney and David McLeod in Adelaide—and they’re both connected with the military. McLeod was involved in the Iraq war in 1991 and is a squadron leader in the air force reserves and Griffin is an officer in the army reserves.

I don’t really understanding the thinking behind this but I suppose David was persuaded that if he got lawyers that might be friendly towards the Howard government then things would improve.

This seems pretty naïve and naturally enough there’s been no improvement. The first time David McLeod did a press conference and spoke out about David’s unfair treatment and his health [Attorney-General] Ruddock responded by declaring that McLeod wasn’t capable of making an assessment after one visit.

RP: You’ve now met with Mamdouh Habib, another Australian citizen who was detained. What was he able to tell you about David’s situation?

TH: Yes, it was very good to meet and talk to him. He told me about his illegal treatment and torture in Pakistan, Egypt and Guantánamo. It’s shocking what the US government is doing and the Australian government’s support for this. He felt that David trusted the Australian officials too much because they’d made all sorts of promises to send him back home. These were all lies. Habib tried to warn him not to believe these people and explained how Australian officials allowed him to be sent to Egypt and tortured.

No matter what they tell David, Howard and Ruddock don’t want him back in the country until after he’s faced an American military trial. He hasn’t broken any laws in Australia or Afghanistan but all they’re concerned about is getting him rushed through the military tribunal, which will guarantee a guilty verdict. They’ll use this to try and justify their own illegal actions.

Howard claimed a few weeks back that the US had enough information to convict David but this so-called evidence would never stand up in a real court of law and is based on torture. How is David supposed to defend himself when he cannot call witnesses or challenge evidence that has been created through threats, torture or promises of freedom and with no lawyers present?

Read More
http://wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/hick-a25.shtml