Bush's America: Stupid and/or Impotent?

April 9 2007
Counterbias.com
by John Calvin Jones
 

Facing the awesome truth of the weight of the evidence that was going to be presented in a military tribunal, David Hicks, a White Australian, has “pled” guilty! Hurray, we got one. After two invasions, thousands of illegal arrests, criminal kidnappings, renditions, torture, endless slaughter, destruction and resurrection of the Taliban, installation of two puppet regimes, murder of hundreds of thousands (read the death certificates), spending over $600 billion on war and permanent military bases, and five years of legal battles, Bush can show the world what the score is. The mastermind of the “help American allies” brigade, serving in the rearguard, David Hicks has pled guilty to providing material support to a terrorist organization. Make that Truth, Justice and the American Way 1, Terrorists 0.

Crimes and History

That is right, while Bush has dismissed Osama bin Laden, who apparently is not very important (look at the FBI 10 most wanted, the FBI still does not claim that bin Laden had anything to do with 9/11), Ol’ “Bring ‘em On” Bush brought a terrorist to justice! The best part is that Hicks admitted that he “provided material support” to a terrorist organization, the Taliban (actually they trained Hicks and he never gave them any weapons or money). Regardless, what is most damning about Hicks is that he helped the Taliban at the time (between January-September 2001), when the official government of Afghanistan was receiving over $120 million directly from the Bush administration, and $35 million from the UN. 

See, the Taliban was a client of the Bush administration, which is why Hicks should have known that they were a bunch of terrorists.  (Sorry, my memory hole fire burned out so I actually have records of Colin Powell and other Bush officials lauding the Taliban, prior to that I know that then-Governor G. W. Bush entertained Taliban representatives in Houston while Enron got dibs on the pipeline deal).

Never mind: though he never fired a shot at an American, never attacked or injured any informal American allies – in Afghanistan, after 9/11, even though Congress never declared war, never claimed that the Taliban regime was an enemy of the U.S., and never said that the Taliban was responsible for 9/11, as of December 2001, Hicks was supposed to know that the Northern Alliance (defined by Colin Powell and the U.S. State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization) was an ally of the U.S. (no treaty or formal arrangement necessary), and that if he were caught, he would be sold to the Americans. The bottom line is that Hicks is a terrorist sympathizer and now will get his just deserts – a one-way ticket to spend nine months in prison in Australia! That will show him and the rest of those terrorists that the Bush administration does not play around. Curiously, the plan for Hicks looks like the one that was handed down to Yasser Hamdi with a slice of John Walker Lindh. 

How does Bush treat Americans?

Recall, Hamdi, and American citizen who was helping the poor and destitute in Afghanistan was sold to American troops by a group of drug dealers called “the Northern Alliance.” Because Hamdi was such a threat to peace and security in the world, the Bush Justice Department (then headed by John Ashcroft), released the terrorist to Saudi Arabia – after Hamdi renounced his American citizenship, and promised neither to go to Afghanistan nor engage in any more terrorist acts. 

Like John Walker Lindh, who pled guilty instead of taking a one-way trip to vacation at Camp Delta, Hicks agreed that he would never bring a lawsuit against the United States, Bush, Rumsfeld, or any of his handlers for torture, abuse or degrading treatment. I know that Hicks was never abused or tortured because Gonzalez, Bush and Rumsfeld promised us that none of the Gitmo detainees has ever been tortured. But, given that Hicks is one of those trained liars (just read his affidavits where he swore that he was beaten and tortured repeatedly), there is no sense in taking a chance. So Hicks will get his, nine months, a gag order preventing him from discussing American military hospitality, and a promise not to sue. That is how the W. shows compassion and metes out justice!

Why not keep Hicks detained forever?

I am curious about one point. Last fall, through the passage of the Military Commissions Act (MCA), the Republican Congress gave Bush the tools to win the war on terror. (I know, Bush said that we cannot win it, but he flip-flopped on that point so as long as you do not pay attention – do not worry about it). The MCA says that Bush or his designees can define anyone as an unlawful enemy combatant, and that such a determination is dispositive and must be accepted by the commission that later tries the detainee. See 10 USC §948d(c). So what you ask? Well, this means that under the MCA, unlawful enemy combatants are not entitled to a military trial or commission hearing, i.e. to profess their innocence or to challenge the claim that they are a terrorist, unlawful combatant, etc. Further, once the label of UEC is ascribed, the way that the Nazis tattooed a number into Jewish prisoners, other parts of the MCA kick in. These include denial of access to the courts challenging their detention, the conditions of their confinement and for abuse endured through beatings, inhumane treatment and torture. See 10 USC §§ 948b(d)(1)(A), 948q(b) and 28 USC §2241. 

What are the possible penalties for being found an unlawful enemy combatant by the military tribunal? Remember, such a finding is always preordained. The penalties include death and imprisonment for life. So why, given that Bush ministers had a guilty man, a terrorist, dead to rights, why would military prosecutors accept a guilty plea for an lesser offense and something that is not even a war crime? (Wait a second, can military tribunals try people for offenses that are not war crime or in violation of the laws of war?) 

Regardless, a trial against Hicks, alleging that he was a war criminal, i.e. an unlawful enemy combatant, and therefore guilty and to be sentenced to death was going to be a snap. The prosecutors only had to present anonymous statements, anonymous hearsay, confessions extracted from torture and secret evidence – all of which are allowed under the MCA, See §§948r(c), 948r(d), 949a(b)(2)(C), and 949d(f). In combination with the Bush determination that Hicks was and is and UEC, Hicks had to be found guilty. 

Misunderestimating Compassion or Guilt?

What kind of leader is Bush when is prosecutors have to limp through a tribunal, and beg Hicks not to sue them for torture – especially since they never did it?  What kind of stupid military judges would allow a terrorist to go free after a slap on the wrist? It must have something to do with Christian values of compassion. After all, like military spokesperson Major Beth Kubala said after military judge Colonel Ralph Kohlman kicked out Hicks’ civilian lawyers, the “process is transparent, legitimate and moving forward.” Could it be more fair for Hicks and the others soon to be tried before the Military Commissions when judge Kohlmann is employing the very system that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unconstitutional in 2004? 

Then again, it might be that everyone knows that Hicks did not commit any crimes, only aided an ally of the U.S. without taking up arms and did not participate in any terrorism. Many people in the military are waking up to the lies of Bush and they are sickened by the torture and abuse of detainees and basic concepts of American justice and fairness. The case of David Hicks, the first instance where Bush could produce a guilty plea – even when a trial would mean certain conviction – shows that the entire system is farcical. We should all be ashamed.  

==

This article was originally published at Virtual Citizens.
 

---