Saturday, March 31, 2007

To: William Glaberson, NYT
Re: Australian to Serve 9 Months in Terrorism Case; March 31, 2007

Mr. Glaberson: Your coverage of the sentencing of David Hicks is thorough. Thank you for bringing this shameful matter to American attention. I wonder, though, whether your interpretation of the Australian government's involvement in the dealmaking isn't a bit credulous. The beleaguered and discredited Howard government is being assailed from all sides for its lockstep support of American brutality in its war, as in its treatment of detainees (including Mr. Hicks, whose agreement now to deny he was brutalized is surely just another instance of his brutalization). Is it not likely that, rather than pressing the Bush Administration, as it claims, it instead has been colluding to make the "resolution" of the Hicks scandal (whatever his real, and now indeterminable guilt) as favorable to its election chances as possible. You report that Howard & Co. have been in friction with the American torturers, but surely there has been far greater cooperation in dissembling and disinformation, than anything else?

Sincerely

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

To: Phillip Ruddock, Attorney General, Australia
Re: David Hicks, Guantanamo Bay detainee
March 27, 2007

Mr Ruddock,

The ABC reports:

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock has rejected suggestions the plea was made under duress. "I don't know what the duress is," he said.

When you swore an oath to uphold the law and to honour truth, didn't you imagine that it would be a breach of the spirit of that law to engage in gross disingenuousness, over and over again? When you act to cover over improper legal procedures, in this way, are you not committing yourself to a course of action that should end in your resignation, and disgrace? Are not the facts of Mr Hicks' actions, which surely now will never be ascertained, irrelevant to your own culpability?

Disgusted,