As has been widely reported, the Australian held at Guantánamo, David Hicks, has plead guilty to one count of supporting a terrorist organization. Via the NYT: Plea of Guilty From Detainee in Guantánamo
In the first conviction of a Guantánamo detainee before a military commission, an Australian who was trained by Al Qaeda pleaded guilty here Monday to providing material support to a terrorist organization.The guilty plea by the detainee, David Hicks, was the first under a new military commission law passed by Congress in the fall after the Supreme Court struck down the Bush administration’s first system for trying inmates at Guantánamo.
The guilty plea is sure to be seen by administration supporters as an affirmation of its efforts to detain and try terrorism suspects here, although the government’s detention policies still face significant legal and political challenges.
My initial reaction is that it is remarkable that it is has taken over four years to get the current tribunal system sorted out. However, there is an ongoing narrative that goes along with the Bush administration, and that has been the clear inability to think ahead as to what its anti-terrorism policies might require, whether it be the complicated question of detainees, or reconstruction and governance in Afghanistan and Iraq. Everything has the appearance of doing everything on the fly–and the improvisations have not been especially impressive.
While it is likely that Hicks is guilty, the fact that it has taken this long to get to this point, coupled with the ongoing serious controversy about Guantánamo and detainees in general, has cast a serious shadow on whatever outcomes the system produces.
Like the Khalid Sheik Mohammed confession we are to the point where we wonder about the veracity of the information and how the confessions were obtained.
As such, I share Alex Knapp’s basic reaction to the Hicks’ plea:
One of the things that is truly awful about the way the Bush Administration has handled counter-terrorism efforts is that its efforts to “act tough” and disregard centuries of American tradition regarding the treatment of prisoners is now actively undermining national security. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed’s “confessions” have been widely disregarded worldwide, since everyone is pretty sure that he was tortured. Hicks’ confession will likely be treated with the same level of skepticism. If their confessions are true, then worldwide skepticism of those confessions is only going to hamper counterterrorist measures and bolster the strength of our enemies.The sad thing is, if the Administration had bothered to pay any attention to history at all–or even to simple human decency, then we would be much closer to defeating Islamic extremism than we are today.
As I have noted before, if the goal of the administration is to spread democracy globally, we have done an exceedingly poor job of modeling the concept to those we seek to convince of its virtues. Hicks’ affidavit regarding his treatment can be found here. Some may say that we can’t trust the word of someone who willfully associated with al Qaeda. Perhaps, but here’s the rub: we have enough independent data to confirm that such treatments have taken place (e.g., Abu Ghraib) and therefore there is credence to such statements that should not exist, if the administration had found a better way to deal with these prisoners.
As such, it is harder to know what Hicks’ plea tells us about the activities of al Qaeda. Instead it has the effect of reminding us of the ineptitude with which the administration has dealt with the question of detainees and reminds us of questions that exist about the conduct of the US in dealing with those in our power.
A side note from the NYT is Hicks’ odd former profession:
Mr. Hicks, a stocky 31-year-old former kangaroo skinner…
Update: Andrew Sullivan notes:
Hicks should have been detained for aiding al Qaeda. I don’t buy the “lost soul” argument. He was knowingly supporting a terrorist group that killed thousands of innocents. But being detained without due process or any process for a crime committed nearly seven years ago is not exactly a sign of a fair or adequately functioning system.Sphere: Related Content
March 27th, 2007 at 10:11 am
if the goal of the administration is to spread democracy globally, we have done an exceedingly poor job of modeling the concept to those we seek to convince of its virtues.
Starting with the coup that put this government in power.
Be assured, hardly anyone abroad takes seriously the idea that “goal of the administration is to spread democracy.”
March 27th, 2007 at 10:18 am
That well may be true–indeed, I have little doubt that it is (global perceptions of administration goals).
And, I may regret opening this can of worms up, but I think “coup” is an incorrect characterization of the results of 2000.
March 27th, 2007 at 10:51 am
And, if you will pardon the term given the context, I will preemptively note the following:
1) The media consortium that recounted the votes noted that had Gore gotten the four-county recount that he was seeking, Bush still would have won.
2) A statewide recount might have rendered a Gore victory–however, it depends on the recount procedures used.
However, “The consortium asked all 67 counties what standard they would have used and what ballots they would have manually recounted. Combining that information with the detailed ballot examination found that Mr. Bush would have won the election, by 493 votes if two of the three coders agreed on what was on the ballot; by 389 counting only those ballots on which all three agreed.”
NYT, November 12, 2001
3) Neither side was seeking the truth, rather each was seeking victory. Gore’s camp targeted those four counties because they thought it gave them the best chance of finding even votes. Bush’s camp fought the recount because they were winning.
Ultimately the slim margin, inconsistent rules, old technology, and voter error rendered a situation wherein the “real” winner was in many ways impossible to discover. As such, “coup” is far, far too strong of a word.
Any number of institutional changes prior to the election would have avoided the entire calamity, I will grant. Further, in retrospect I would agree that a statewide recount should have been entered into. However, the result could have very easily still been the same (hence, unequivocal statements about what have happened lack foundation). Further, there would have been an argument over recount rules and the like which still would not have rendered a clear, inarguable conclusion.
For what it is worth, the whole affair sparked my desire to scrap the whole EC. However, I am doubtful such will be happening anytime soon.
March 27th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Considering that Gitmo is apparently so horrendous that several inmates have committed suicide there, I’m guessing that any plea that gets him back to Australia was a bargain in his eyes.
March 28th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
“Get Out of Gitmo Not Quite Free” Card?
My vision of Hell is being falsely accused of a serious crime and being offered a plea bargain to a lesser offense.
It’s easy to insist, in armchair-quarterback fashion, that you would never, ever, accept a plea for a crime you didn’t comm…