Terror case plea deal sparks anger in US, Australia

The plea agreement that saw the release of "Aussie Taliban" David Hicks from detention at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has prompted harsh criticism - in the US as being too lenient, and in Australia as being a political tool in the upcoming elections.

Mr. Hicks's plea agreement includes a nine-month prison sentence. Additionally, Hicks agreed not to allege that he was subjected to illegal treatment while in US custody, and not to speak with the media for one year. The Washington Post reports that the plea was crafted without the knowledge of prosecutors in his trial at the US military facility. Hicks had been facing two counts of providing material support for terrorism. His was the first case to be heard by special war crimes tribunals set up under the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

The deal shows that the politically appointed [convening authority for military commissions] has the power to personally decide the fate of America's most notorious terrorism suspects.

Marine Maj. Michael "Dan" Mori, representing Hicks, took his plea negotiations to Susan J. Crawford, the top military commission official, rather than dealing with prosecutors who were seeking a lengthy penalty, according to both sides in the case. In what became a highly politicized situation involving the Australian government, Crawford allowed Hicks a short sentence in exchange for a year-long gag order, a guarantee that he will not allege illegal treatment at the hands of his U.S. captors, and a waiver of any right to appeal or sue.

The Los Angeles Times writes that even as the plea deal was being negotiated behind the scenes, Hicks was portrayed by the prosecution as a grave threat to the US.

The charge sheet detailing Hicks' alleged support for terrorist groups initially portrayed him as an accomplice of Al Qaeda kingpins. The prosecutor in his case, Marine Lt. Col. Kevin Chenail, continued through closing arguments Friday to cast the defendant as a danger to Western societies.

"Today in this courtroom we are on the front line of the war on terrorism, face to face with the enemy," Chenail said. He evoked Al Qaeda attacks against the U.S. destroyer Cole in Yemen and U.S. Embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania as examples of how Hicks' terrorist training could be called into service at any time.

If Hicks was such a menace to Western security, as the U.S. government has alleged since his arrest in December 2001, asked staff attorney Ben Wizner of the American Civil Liberties Union, "why was he given a sentence more appropriate for a drunk-driving offense?"

The Post adds that Col. Chenail said he was shocked by the shortness of the sentence. "I wasn't considering anything that didn't have two digits," he said.

The New York Times writes that while "a prosecutor who bargained a case with a potential life sentence down to an additional nine months of imprisonment" might be considered on the losing side, the chief military prosecutor, Col. Morris D. Davis of the Air Force, offered a different assessment.

It was not a loss for the prosecution, Colonel Davis said, but a victory for a much maligned system that he said had been unfairly criticized before it was given a chance to prove it could deliver justice.

"There's a notion that this is a rigged system," he said when asked if he was disappointed by the outcome. "I think this shows that's not true."

However, Maureen Byrnes of Human Rights First told the Los Angeles Times that the trial has "illustrated everything that's wrong with these military commissions.

Page: 1 | 2