How can the military tribunal at Guantanamo Bay detention camp, which still operates under the authority of the U.S. Constitution, issue an unconstitutional parole agreement?
The gag order on David Hicks, which is part of his plea agreement for getting out of that hellhole, orders David Hicks not to speak to any media about what he was doing in Afghanistan or his time at Guantanamo Bay. Such a plea agreement would be illegal in the United States, except that it has been issued by the military tribunals set up just for the purpose of justifying illegal detentions.
And the U.S. Supreme Court refuses to hear the cases of the detainees. Their decision will be remembered in the same breath as the Japanese detention case in World War II.
In the linked article, the leading Australian law officer mocked the idea that David Hicks would ever be deported for breaking the gag order, openly sneering at the illegality of it. Too bad our own Supreme Court can't bring itself to do the same thing.
1 comment:
There is the matter of "does the Constitution of the United States apply to people who are not technically inside the USA and are not citizens". The Japanese held in the internment camps were Citizens, or legal residents.
However, as the Auzzie law guy says - what if Mr. Hicks does blab to the Auzzie media? What are we going to do, invade Australia and arrest the Auzzie Rick Sanchez?
And why was the guy not tried under Australian law? We captured him yes, but he could have just been turned over to Australia. I am sure that he had to break some sort of law there.
Post a Comment