'Hicks, 31, was sentenced to seven years in jail after pleading guilty to supporting terrorism, but all but nine months of the sentence was suspended...
...Under a plea bargain deal with the prosecution, Hicks could only be sentenced to a maximum of seven years.
The plea deal also specifies that any term beyond nine months be suspended, the judge at the sentencing hearing on Friday evening revealed...
...As part of the plea bargain, Hicks also withdrew claims he had been beaten by US forces after his capture in Afghanistan and that he had been sedated before learning of the charges against him.
US civil rights groups have accused Washington of trying to cover up abuses and Hicks' father in Australia continued to insist his son had been maltreated...
...As part of his plea deal, Hicks has agreed not to speak to the media for a year, not to receive any money for his story and not to sue the US government.
He is the first Guantanamo detainee convicted of any terrorist offence since they began arriving at the camp a little over five years ago.'news.bbc.co.uk
Whatever you think of Hicks himself, surely the sentence is ridiculous. It has been reduced from seven years to nine months in order to cover up abuses over the past five years which led to the verdict.
Could anyone be proud of such a process? Is anyone (from the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key brigade to the due-process-and-transparency traditionalists) going to be happy with it?
This man has been in jail for five years already. So if he had got a seven year sentence at the outset, he'd have been out by now
So what is there to complain about? Wonder is he wasn't freed immediately but it must be doubted just how much of the nine months will be served at all.He may be let out very soon after his arrival in Australia
The Australian lawyer who had acted for this man before, speaking on the BBC, said that the man would have fought the case but the deal offered was such that, whether guilty or not,it was too good to refuse.You can see the point.He was, in effect, being freed just for signing a bit of paper and saying 'Guilty'. The authorities are surely being optimistic if they think he won't sell his story either as a personal account or through his family. How could the Australians enforce the American tribunal's direction ? Why would they ?
Assuming that Hicks goes back to Australia (so not under US law) is he under any real requirement to follow the sentence agreement about not selling his story on not talking to the media?
I have no idea about this person's guilt or innocence, but given the situation in the US justice department, I think there is real reason to question the "justice" being dispensed in these cases. As a US citizen, it hurts me to say this. Dwight
Posts: 4285 | Location: Anchorage, AK | Registered: 06-05-02
Ah, I see they're still up to their old tricks. This sort of thing is actually very common in the lower courts. The old, "We'll let you go Home today if you plead Guilty and keep your mouth shut, thereby absolving us of any wrongdoing. Or, you can plead Not Guilty and go back to prison to await your trial date, which may be years from now. Then, when convicted, be sentenced to years more. The choice is yours."
Practically speaking in all fairness, what kind of a 'choice' do you call that? Whatever so-called "Justice System" which handled this case is a Kangaroo Court, and ought to be ashamed of itself. No doubt this isn't the first time this has happened regarding the Guantanamo inmates, nor the last.
Something seems to be wrong with the Site. It won't allow me to edit, so I'm making an addition:
You'de have to be crazy not to take their so-called "deal". Not to mention that refusing it would place the subject back into the very place which he claims to have been beaten and tortured, setting himself up for even more abuse; quite possibly even death!
Note that this man was seized by the CIA in Gambia, West Africa, taken to Afghanistan and then Guantanamo.Is there no end to the reach of the CIA ? Must make a note not to holiday in Gambia , a popular holiday destination for Britons
Good job he is on our side : he'd plainly still be in Guantanamo if the British government had not interceded.They would not do so for a foreigner but this man was resident. He had been assisting MI5 (our intelligence service).MI5 would want help from anyone resident here who could have any contact with or knowledge of the radical cleric named in the link.That's the kind of intelligence they rely on. The cleric would have been suspected of trying to convert young British men to jihadism.He would persuade the young men to go to training camps, ostensibly for religious study but in fact extremist, in Pakistan. BBC radio has just said that the Americans were trying to claim that this man was himself trying to set up some training camp abroad
Perhaps, had this man been Australian, he'd have been charged and put up for some offence but as it was he got out without.
The public relations skills of the American authorities remain the same His lawyers reported that the man was still shackled when brought out to be released. What did the authorities expect him to do? Run back inside?
Btw, why do we call them "detainees"? Being "detained" is what you call it at the airport when you have to wait for 3 hours or more. Being arrested, imprisoned, and tortured for over 5 YEARS goes waaaaaaay beyond the boundaries of that seemingly innocuous term!
It's a bit difficult to argue that you never pressurise suspects into confessing if you detain a man for years and then say 'If you sign this bit of paper and say you are guilty you can go back home immediately', as has happened with the Australian, Hicks. That behaviour does tend to lend weight to any suspect's argument that you tried torturing him (whether you call what you do not 'torture' but merely 'a method of interrogation' )to get him to confess.
In the 'old days' in Britain, before we had strict rules and procedures e.g every interview on tape and the suspect given a copy, it was surprising how many suspects confessed to policemen in the police station, claimed later that they'd been told they'd be kept in custody otherwise, and instantly denied the offence on leaving it We used to have a lot of suspects who had got injured in the police station too. One police station was famous for the number of suspects who "fell down the steps on the way to (or from) the cells" before and after interrogations. They also had a large number who suffered head injuries which the police officers said happened like this: " The suspect was put back in the cell but as we were closing the door he made a headlong dash for the doorway and he hit his head on the metal door just at the very moment we were closing it" Goodness knows what our police could have done, and what accidents could have happened, in a place like Guantanamo.
Goodness knows what our police could have done, and what accidents could have happened, in a place like Guantanamo
As as former police officer in the UK, I find your remarks totally reprehensible.
One can in no way liken the atrocities being committed in Guantanamo Bay with the interviewing of suspects in British Police Stations. I don't deny there are instances of abuse of police powers . But your post suggests that police brutality is rife in the UK. Most police officers, in my opinion, do follow the rules. They don't assault people in their custody or coerce them into making confessions.
This was also the case before The Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into effect, requiring taperecorded interviews.
quote:
One police station was famous for the number of suspects who "fell down the steps on the way to (or from) the cells" before and after interrogations.
I never heard the questioning of a suspect referred to as "an interrogation" and am pretty sure you are aware that this is not a word that is used to describe the interview process in the UK.
British police forces are far from perfect, as I am sure are their counterparts in the US, but to imply there is a prison camp/routine torture mentality in our police stations is inaccurate.
Dancegirl. You don't say when or where you were in the police. I practised in London, at the criminal bar,both prosecuting and defending from 1969. Believe me, I know whereof I speak.I did not cite the examples I did because of some fanciful imaginings, rumour or wild hearsay.Sadly it is borne from knowledge. Perhaps you'll allow me as an expert witness
I did not say that such behaviour was rife now. I said 'in the old days'.
Nice word 'interrogation' isn't it? It seemed better than 'interview' when addressing a non-British readership.
Hi Fred, I was in the Thames Valley Police Force stationed at Milton Keynes. I was there between 1986 and 1990. It might sound like a relatively easy job, working in Buckinghamshire, compared with London. Believe me, it was far from a picnic working there.
I am sure that the Met' had it's own set of problems. I don't deny, as I said, that there was, and still is, abuse of power on the part of the police. I would be the last person to paint any police force as whiter than white.
Actually, I have been thinking about the words "interogation" and "interview", and both are probably inaccurate to describe what happens in a police station after a suspect is arrested. Probably the better term would be "questioning"..and I think that is the term we used to describe the process.
Actually, I have been thinking about the words "interogation" and "interview", and both are probably inaccurate to describe what happens in a police station after a suspect is arrested. Probably the better term would be "questioning"..and I think that is the term we used to describe the process.
( 1969 I was only 8 years old ! )
Questioning is a police term. Whatever it is, it ain't an 'interview process' 'Interview' is preferred to 'interrogation' because 'interrogation' sounds hostile, as though the suspect has no right of silence.Counsel will always use 'interview' as their everyday term. They use 'under questioning' sometimes, for effect. 'Under questioning he confessed/ admitted/said' carries a nuance : it hints at the subject being under pressure, an effect which may be desired particularly when defending because it doesn't sound as theatrical or menacing as 'interrogation' but still gets a subtle message to the jury. It hints at the client being under some pressure of circumstances, not necessarily through some impropriety of the police, so a) his previous convictions don't go before the jury (it is no attack on the character or conduct of the officer) and b)it conveys the idea that he said something not because it was true but because of that, perhaps self-induced, pressure on his own thinking (Subtle game, isn't it ?)
Only eight years old in 1969? You youngsters today So you won't remember that TV 'fly on the wall'documentary about Thames Valley when they used an unfortunate manner with tough language and questions when interviewing a rape victim,as though she was the guilty party. As a result there was a big brouhaha and a good result was that new guidelines and rules were introduced.Officers were specially trained in such interviews and in dealing with complainants generally.It's one reason why such interviews in all forces now are conducted sympathetically and by specialist officers. That was not something unique to Thames Valley then; you could have found it anywhere; it was just the misfortune of Thames Valley to be on camera in that instance.In the end though it was all to the good.
I never heard the questioning of a suspect referred to as "an interrogation" and am pretty sure you are aware that this is not a word that is used to describe the interview process in the UK.
"Interrogation" is a common term in the U.S., and would actually be much more common than "interview", with regard to police. An "interview" is something you try to get when applying for employment.
I've even heard the term "interrogation room" before, more than once. There's nothing sinister about the word, honestly. It's the same as "questioning", only it's more 'police specific'.
Off the subject, but I'm curious to know, do the police in Great Britain carry guns? I've heard before that they don't. If not, then what do they use instead? Just those nightsticks? Those things were banned from police usage in the U.S. shortly after the televised Rodney King beating in the early 90's (some cops still do carry smaller versions of them, as an option).
Off the subject, but I'm curious to know, do the police in Great Britain carry guns? I've heard before that they don't.
No ordinary policeman in Britain carries a gun.We do have 'armed response units'. These are units made up of specially trained officers who are called out instantly as occasion demands.
Otherwise the only policemen who ever carry guns on duty are volunteer firearms officers who have passed a battery of psychological tests on applying (most applicants fail these, apparently. It may be that someone who actually wants to carry a gun is not the kind of person who is fit to be allowed one ) They do not carry a gun everyday.They are only carrying a firearm for such time as they are on a duty where one is authorised and required e.g the diplomatic protection officers outside some embassies are armed when on duty there. Officers with the requisite training who are on certain cases where a firearm is necessary may be armed: it depends on the circumstances and the officers are given authority on a case by case basis.
You will see a few firearms officers patrolling with sub-machine guns at international airports here too. These are for the tourists: foreigners like to be reassured and the officers are really there for show.Their presence is likely to unnerve us natives, have the exact opposite effect. If we see a policeman with a gun we fear the worst and assume that there is some danger which we are not being told about just yet .After all no policeman carries a handgun so why would two be carrying sub-machine guns?
Britain is a place where carrying or owning a gun is considered totally abnormal.In fact we would seriously doubt the personality of anyone who did have one.We can't imagine ourselves ever having one so we doubt anyone who would want one.It follows that it does not seem strange to us that the ordinary policeman e.g traffic patrolman is not armed. That is so regardless of any legal sanctions: it is a matter of our culture. As it happens it is illegal to own or possess any handgun or rifle and the penalties are severe. Quite recently a man was reported by his wife because he had a loaded gun in the bedside cabinet. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment, that being the minimum.( I assume she wanted to be rid of him )
Our police officers 'on the beat' have the traditional truncheon: it's like a very short nightstick.They have access to CS gas canisters and I believe that such canisters are regularly carried by officers on duty. ( They often have access to a taser gun too.No doubt the taser is absent from the patrol cars in truly rural areas but not in a big city)
Britain is a place where carrying or owning a gun is considered totally abnormal.In fact we would seriously doubt the personality of anyone who did have one.We can't imagine ourselves ever having one so we doubt anyone who would want one.It follows that it does not seem strange to us that the ordinary policeman e.g traffic patrolman is not armed. That is so regardless of any legal sanctions: it is a matter of our culture. As it happens it is illegal to own or possess any handgun or rifle and the penalties are severe. Quite recently a man was reported by his wife because he had a loaded gun in the bedside cabinet. He was sentenced to five years imprisonment, that being the minimum.( I assume she wanted to be rid of him )
Amazing. I don't believe I have EVER seen a cop in uniform without a pistol strapped at their side. Even most rent-a-cops (security guards) usually carry guns. Because, seriously, how much authority can they impose without one? I dunno, maybe that's just how it is in the U.S. Maybe we're just conditioned to be that violent, that so many people carry guns around, so that the thought of law enforcement without any seems completely ineffective.
Thanx for answering my question, though. It was very educational!
Well Valor D, in the whole of Britain in 2005-2006 there were 708 cases 'initially reported as homicide'.
Of those, 52 were victims of the London bombings of July 7th. Of the remainder, 50 were killed by firearms [source: UK Home Office statistics].So , oddly, in those twelve months more people in Britain were killed by terrorist suicide bomber than were killed with firearms .
So we have quite a low homicide rate and killing by firearms represents only a small part, about 7 per cent, of the total(we prefer to beat one another to death )In the US firearms reportedly account for about 65 per cent of homicides.Based on that twelve months, if the population of Britain (c 60 million) were the same as that of the USA we'd have a total of c 3,500 homicides a year and c 250 homicides by firearm.
That's right, firearms are generally not a problem in the UK. There have been some really big well publicised homicides. But these are few and far between.
Probably the The Hungerford Massacre was the one I remember best, because it took place within the borders of the police force I was working in at the time.
The rules governing the owning and storage of firearms are very strict in the UK.
The British do not take the attitude that owning a firearm is a right.
When I was in the police force over there, I came across very few instances where firearms were an issue. One of the most horrible was a suicide, where the guy decided to put a gun to his head inside his locked mini car...not a pleasant sight
Granted that Philadelphia is exceptional, but the NYT has an item today about gun homicides there. Last year they had 406 homicides, of which 85% were gun homicides. This year there has been an increase, so the state lawmakers have been considering their options. One proposal is that citizens should be restricted to buying one handgun a month. Yes, one a month! This proposed restriction is resisted by some lawmakers, who complain that it is contrary to the right to bear arms An earlier attempt to get such a measure into law failed.The idea behind this supposed 'restriction' is to hinder those who would buy guns for other people, people who might not otherwise be allowed a gun.
Wow!
I think we have to concede that the US is way beyond having any possibility of gun control By the way, New York was cited as a place which had reduced its gun homicides. It only had 102 in the period January 1st to April 8th this year.New York has six times the population of Philadelphia, so Philadelphia's is an extreme case.
Britons are lucky in that.If we had the same population as the US has we'd still have only 250 to 350 gun homicides in a year, maximum.Mind you, we are pretty nifty with the old 'blunt instrument' (as the means of bashing someone's head in is quaintly termed) Basically, if we want to kill a Briton by shooting then we send them to Afghanistan, just as we did in the 1870s.
I could never understand this, Fred, because the amendment states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Therefore now that there is a standing army, which was what the constitution wanted to avoid in the first place, there is no need for a Militia so surely, the amendment is superfluous, and thus falls..
Wonder is he wasn't freed immediately but it must be doubted just how much of the nine months will be served at all.He may be let out very soon after his arrival in Australia 
I was only 8 years old ! )
)
An earlier attempt to get such a measure into law failed.The idea behind this supposed 'restriction' is to hinder those who would buy guns for other people, people who might not otherwise be allowed a gun.
