Gitmo Justice Revealed

On Saturday, I linked to news that Australian David Hicks-- one of the more high-profile prisoners at Guantanamo Bay-- pleaded guilty "to supporting terrorism in exchange for a nine-month prison sentence under a plea deal that forbids him from claiming he was abused in U.S. custody." Kind of odd, no?

But that's just what's on the surface of this story! Andrew Sullivan digs a little deeper and discovers just how corrupt and hollow the Guantanamo 'justice' system is (and the Bush/Cheney 'war on terror' in turn). He writes-

So Cheney goes to Australia and meets with John Howard who tells him that the Hicks case is killing him in Australia, and he may lose the next election because of it. Hicks's case is then railroaded to the front of the Gitmo kangaro court line, and put through a "legal" process almost ludicrously inept, with two of Hicks' three lawyers thrown out on one day, then an abrupt plea-bargain, with a transparently insincere confession. Hicks is then given a mere nine months in jail in Australia, before being set free. Who negotiated the plea-bargain? Hicks' lawyer. Who did he negotiate with? Not the prosecutors, as would be normal, but Susan J. Crawford, the top military commission official. Who is Susan J. Crawford? She served as Dick Cheney's Inspector General while he was Defense Secretary...

...If you think this was in any way a legitimate court process, you're smoking something even George Michael would pay a lot of money for. It was a political deal, revealing the circus that the alleged Gitmo court system really is. For good measure, Hicks has a gag-order imposed so that he will not be able to speak of his alleged torture and abuse until after Howard faces re-election. Yes, we live in a banana republic. It certainly isn't a country ruled by law. It is ruled by one man and his accomplice.

Is it 2009 yet?

Speaking of, that year may not bring magical salvation from these horrors if leading GOP candidates have their way. Glenn Greenwald notes that both Mitt Romney and Rudy Guiliani were asked if they believe the President "should have the authority to arrest U.S. citizens with no review." Neither said no.

That such a position has become even remotely acceptable is another sign of the post-9/11 psychosis I wrote about on Sunday.