Rendition of an Australian Terror Suspect

[Guderian]

Since no one has replied to what I posted in the CIA 'running secret terror jails' thread I think it is appropriate to start a new thread.

US forces sexually abused Hicks, father says
October 31, 2005 - 8:44PM

Terror suspect David Hicks was sexually abused during two, 10-hour beatings by US attackers, his father Terry has told the ABC's Four Corners program.

Hicks has been in US custody since he was captured alongside Taliban forces in Afghanistan in late 2001, and has spent most of that time at the Guantanamo Bay military prison in Cuba.
He has pleaded not guilty to charges of conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy.
His trial begins on November 18 before a military commission.
Hicks' lawyers and family have raised abuse allegations before but the Australian government has said there was no evidence to support the claims.

Four Corners tonight reported that soon after being captured by the United States, Hicks was held on the warship USS Peleliu in the Arabian Sea.

Hicks told Englishman Martin Mubanga, a former Guantanamo Bay detainee, he had been taken from the ship by helicopter to an unidentified place, thought to be Pakistan or Afghanistan.
The United States has been accused of using the practice of rendition with Guantanamo Bay detainees, where it takes prisoners to another country to be tortured rather than doing it on US soil.
Mr Mubanga told Four Corners Hicks had been taken from the Peleliu and then beaten, spat at, abused and assaulted.

"(His attackers yelled) things like 'you Aussie kangaroo' and things like that, yeah, while they were beating and spitting on him and things like that, so he was called a traitor," he said.
"And then basically they brought him back, blindfolded, so he never saw his attackers or his abusers basically."

Hicks' father, Terry, confirmed that the abuse had involved sexually embarrassing things and that they involved Americans.

"He had two, 10-hour beatings from the Americans and I said to David, 'Sure they were Americans?' (because) he said he had a bag over his head and he said, 'Oh look ... I know their accents, they were definitely American'," Mr Hicks told Four Corners.
"Some pretty horrific things ... were done to him."

The program reported the abuse had included Hicks being injected and then penetrated anally with various objects.
Hicks' lawyers say they have witnesses relating to the abuse and that the United States has photographic evidence.
His American lawyer, Major Michael Mori, would not comment on the specifics of what information he had.

"I'd say it's an area that I'm investigating and that I've already found some evidence and witnesses that support that occurring," he told Four Corners.

Former Australian Guantanamo Bay detainee, Mamdouh Habib, who was released earlier this year, has also claimed that he was abused while on foreign soil.
In February, Mr Habib detailed how he was tortured in a military airport in Pakistan.
During a particular episode of abuse, Mr Habib said 15 men stripped him, inserted something into his anus, put him in a nappy and tied him up.

AAP

Direct Link

[Guderian]

Direct quote from a transcript of Four Corners televised on the ABC channel on 31/10/2005

DEBBIE WHITMONT: In January this year, the only other Australian at Guantanamo - Mamdouh Habib - was suddenly released. Up until then, the Australian Government had maintained that both Hicks and Habib had been treated humanely.

LT CDR CHARLES SWIFT, MILITARY ATTORNEY: I was in line to represent Mr Habib. I had been contacted, and he was a day from having a defence counsel and going to a military commission. Ah, and the same assurances were being made, apparently, regarding statements that had been obtained in Egypt while he was up to his neck in water.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: It was revealed that Habib had been taken to Egypt and tortured - a process known as 'rendition'.

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH, MOAZZAM BEGG'S LAWYER: Mamdouh Habib was not just abused. Mamdouh Habib had electrodes put on him, and there, that was going to be such a PR catastrophe for the whole military commission process, they couldn't possibly afford to do that.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Moazzam Begg and the rest of the Englishmen were released at the same time. Begg had spent two years in Guantanamo, and one year held by the Americans in solitary confinement in Afghanistan.

MOAZZAM BEGG, FORMER GUANTANAMO DETAINEE: I was beaten, tortured and threatened with being sent to, um, to Egypt for further torture where they use electric shocks and, and rape and so forth, if I didn't comply with what they said.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: In Guantanamo, Begg wrote dozens of letters describing his torture. One of them somehow slipped out uncensored. His lawyers released it publicly.

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH, MOAZZAM BEGG'S LAWYER: I mean, they said Moazzam Begg was the worst terrorist in the world, and they set him free when we demonstrated how he'd been abused.

MOAZZAM BEGG, FORMER GUANTANAMO DETAINEE READS FORM LETTER: I have been menaced and threatened directly and indirectly with firearms...

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Moazzam Begg told Four Corners that he and Hicks often pondered on why Hicks - out of hundreds at Guantanamo - was one of the very first to be charged and sent to trial.

MOAZZAM BEGG, FORMER GUANTANAMO DETAINEE: I firmly believe why David Hicks has been singled out in this particular manner, ah, and was the first person to be put through this process, is because he's the token white man.

JOSH DRATEL, HICKS'CIVILIAN ATTORNEY: He... allows for the process to look even-handed in a cultural and ethnic sense. He's a Caucasian, he's a westerner. This is not about the Middle East. This is not about, you know, people of colour. This is about dangerous people. So, they can say that and... and also I think that he's English speaking, and they would like to if they, if they could... turn him against others, and have a witness, that would be to their advantage.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: How many other Caucasian Guantanamo detainees are there now, to your knowledge?

JOSH DRATEL, HICKS'CIVILIAN ATTORNEY: Zero.

STEPHEN KENNY, HICKS' FORMER SOLICITOR, 13 MAY 2004: I can now say that David Hicks has been treated in a manner which I consider to be abusive, a serious violation of his human rights, and which constitutes a criminal offence in international law.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: When the allegation emerged over a year ago that David Hicks had been abused by American troops, the Prime Minister said the complaint's timing - just after the Abu Ghraib scandal - was suspicious.

JOHN HOWARD, 20 MAY 2004: The man you refer to is a Taliban supporter. I find it strange that these allegations of abuse against Mr Hicks and Mr Habib have arisen only since the prisoner abuse scandal erupted.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: But according to his lawyers, David Hicks's claims of abuse had been made much earlier. They were in fact the first thing Hicks had told them, but the US Defense Department had banned the lawyers from making any details public.

STEPHEN KENNY, HICKS' FORMER SOLICITOR, 13 MAY 2004: These abuses were not simply the excesses of individual guards. They were carefully orchestrated and organised at high levels of the US command structure.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Now, for the first time, Four Corners can reveal those details. Soon after he was taken into custody, Hicks was held with a small group of detainees on a US warship in the Arabian Sea - the USS 'Peleliu'. Martin Mubanga - an Englishman - knew David Hicks in Guantanamo. Hicks told him about being taken from the warship by helicopter to an unidentified land base - most likely in Pakistan or Afghanistan.

MARTIN MUBANGA, FORMER GUANTANAMO DETAINEE: He was thrown onto the chopper. His hands were in shackles and chains. And basically they was taken to, by helicopter, to a place. They was blindfolded, and there they was beaten and spat upon, and he was abused and assaulted. Things like, "You Aussie kangaroo", and things like that. Yeah, while they were beating and spitting on him and things like that. So, he was called a traitor. And then basically they brought him back blindfolded, so he never saw his...his attackers or his abusers, basically. And then he was brought back to the ship.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: When Terry Hicks went to Guantanamo, he says those beatings were the very first thing his son told him about.

TERRY HICKS: David was full on, he was agitated, he was stressed. All he wanted to do is, he just told us, "Listen. Don't say anything, I'll get it out as quick as I can." He had two 10-hour beatings from the Americans. And I said to David, "Sure they were Americans?" - 'cause he said he had a bag over his head - and he said, "Oh look," he said, "I know their accents, they were definitely American." Some pretty horrific things that were done to him.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Are they... sexually embarrassing things?

TERRY HICKS: Yes.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: These sexually-related incidents... does this involve Americans?

TERRY HICKS: Yes.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: David Hicks told his father the Americans gave him injections and then penetrated him anally with various objects. Why does he believe he was taken off a ship by helicopter?

TERRY HICKS: Well, I mean, if they've taken him off... They're taking him off an American ship. So, I suppose if anything happens, the Americans would say, "Well, it didn't happen on our soil."

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Being taken off a warship, it's like a mini-rendition if you like, do you believe that did happen?

CLIVE STAFFORD SMITH, MOAZZAM BEGG'S LAWYER: Being taken off a warship is not a mini-rendition, it's a rendition, period. There were all sorts of renditions. There were American renditions to themselves from Pakistan to Afghanistan to torture people, from American ships to Afghanistan to torture people.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Hicks's lawyers believe it's unlikely detainees would be helicoptered off a warship without official authorisation.

JOSH DRATEL, HICKS' CIVILIAN ATTORNEY: Authorised - someone would take them on a helicopter - they didn't think they were going to take them to the zoo. I mean, obviously when they take detainees off a ship or round them up and bring them somewhere else, someone's got to say 'OK', and they have to know why.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: David Hicks's lawyers told Four Corners they have witnesses they're not revealing at this point, and that US authorities have photographic evidence.

MAJOR MICHAEL (DAN) MORI, HICKS' MILITARY ATTORNEY: I can't comment on the specifics. I'd say it's an area that I'm investigating, and that I've already found some evidence and witnesses that support that occurring.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: The Australian Government says that David Hicks's claims of abuse have been thoroughly investigated.

JOHN HOWARD, 16 JULY 2005: I can inform you - and we'll provide you with a letter later - that we have received written advice from the Defense Department that after a very thorough investigation of the allegations of Hicks and Habib about mistreatments whilst they were in American custody, no evidence has been found to support those allegations.

JOSH DRATEL, HICKS' CIVILIAN ATTORNEY: There is simply not a legitimate effort by the United States Government or the Australian Government to get to the bottom of the abuse, because the bottom is really the top, and that's the problem.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: In recent months, even the heavily censored letters from Guantanamo have been drying up. There's little left to say. This letter arrived about a year ago.

ACTOR’S VOICE, HICKS' LETTER TO FAMILY: Dear Dad, I feel as though I'm teetering on the edge of losing my sanity after such a long ordeal - the last year of it being in isolation. There are a number of things the authorities could do to help to improve my living conditions, but low morale and depression seems to be the order of the day. They're also making sure that I'm disadvantaged as possible when it comes to defending myself.

DEBBIE WHITMONT: Next month - if David Hicks is tried - it will be by a system outside the courts, and run entirely by the US Defense Department.

Direct link to the entire transcript of the segment

I think it is highly probable that the US government and Military have carried out these abuses. To me this means the terrorists have already won.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

The way the Howard Government has kowtowed to Washington over the David Hicks case is a total disgrace. Hicks was a rather idiotic idealist, but he was no terrorist. But he's been thrown to the wolves by the liars in Canberra to appease their masters in the US.

[Kanaric]

Canberra is a funny word.

[Marshal Qin]

I just don't understand what game Howard thinks he's playing. Does he know that he's supposed to be an Australian? I don't think he realises what it means to be Australian at all - he mouths the words 'fair go' etc, but his actions make him look like a prostitute to 'US inc'. More importantly, I don't know why the opposition and the Australian people are not more upset about this and many other issues. You'ld think that with the wealth of material that the labout party has to attack Johnny on, that they would be on a roll right now. I'm still waiting for a US base to be opened in the NT and wonder what sort of reaction that will bring...if any. Are we doomed to become a protectorate by letting a foreign power determine our foreign policy, dictate our laws, decide our cultural values and patrol out borders?

[Dr Zoidberg]

Are we doomed to become a protectorate by letting a foreign power determine our foreign policy, dictate our laws, decide our cultural values and patrol out borders?

It certainly looks that way. Thanks to Howard this country is really going down the gurgler. What really :wub: the hell out of me is that a large proportion of the people now complaining about the IR reforms, the new Anti-Terror legislation etc are the same people who actually elected Howard back into office a year ago because they fell for his blatant lie about being the only one capable of keeping interest rates down. What a complete and utter Furphy that one was. "Oh, I can ensure that global financial markets remain at a level that keeps interest rates low. Elect Labour into office and you'll see interest rates sky rocket!"

When will the Australian public stop falling for these spur of the moment lies and start remembering all the crap Howard has done over the last decade? GST, IR, Healthcare, etc all forgotten at eleciton time due to a) Boat People, b) Terrorists or c) Interest Rates!

The Australian voting public has a very short term memory! Argh!

P.S Did any other Aussies see the Chasers live show? I did when it came to Canberra and I thought I might share a few choice lines

According to the Constitution, the Senate is a house of review.
According to John Howard, the Constitution can go :wub: itself.

and

The Senate process is as follows:
1) The Bill is introduced into the Senate.
2) It is debated vigorously by Barnaby Joyce in the media
3) It passes just as Howard wanted it to

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

What really :wub: the hell out of me is that a large proportion of the people now complaining about the IR reforms, the new Anti-Terror legislation etc are the same people who actually elected Howard back into office a year ago because they fell for his blatant lie about being the only one capable of keeping interest rates down. What a complete and utter Furphy that one was. "Oh, I can ensure that global financial markets remain at a level that keeps interest rates low. Elect Labour into office and you'll see interest rates sky rocket!"

Well said mate. The thing that annoys me most about the snakes and creeps in Canberra is the way they seem to be able to exploit the average voter. Their ridiculous campaign in the last election was a case in point. Leaving aside certain critical failings on Latham's part and the vast millstone that is ALP structure and its impact on policy determination, Howard won that election on a lie. Much as he won the previous one on a baseless scare campaign. Does anyone remember a detailed exposition of the current IR 'reforms' in the last election campaign? No, me neither. Yet, here we are being bombarded with millions of dollars of propaganda about how it's going to be just peachy for workers to be employed for next to nothing, just like over in the US of A.

But at least the average punter is wary of the IR 'reforms', despite the attempts at hosing down their concerns by the (cross media ownership-conscious) Packer and Murdoch semi-duopoly. Polling shows the average punter supports the 'Anti-Terrorism' laws, but this is on the back of an almost total silence from the spineless Beazley Opposition. Everyone from the churches, to old Mal Fraser to Bob Hawke, to various lawyers have condemned these laws. But Howard tried to get them passed with ten minutes reading and on Melbourne Cup Day. And when that failed he 'suddenly' found a specific terrorist threat that made their passage essential.

What a surprise!

Now they have been rushed through Parliament, will we now see the arrest of the vile terrorists responsible for this supposed 'specific terrorist threat'? I'd bet good money we won't. But Howard has his 'anti-sedition' laws and I wonder how many more activists will now be silenced and how many actual terrorists will 'disappear' now that this draconian legislation is on the books.

We live in grim times gentlemen. What has the lucky country become?

At least the morons in Washington and their dupes here on TWC have some (totally wall-eyed and idiotic) ideals to cling to while they pretend the neo-cons have some kiind of valid argument. All we have here are that moron Downer, the walking corpse Ruddock and John 'Truth Overboard' Howard.

The dark clouds are gathering ...

[Guderian]

Hicks was a rather idiotic idealist, but he was no terrorist.

Exactly, he went to Afganistan looking for Islam, found Al Queda, and had a backpacking holiday with his Al Queda mates. Now does that make him a top terrorist suspect? riduclous...

I just don't understand what game Howard thinks he's playing. Does he know that he's supposed to be an Australian?

By the looks of it he thinks he is THE prophet of capitalism...

I don't think he realises what it means to be Australian at all - he mouths the words 'fair go' etc, but his actions make him look like a prostitute to 'US inc'.

It's not just the US. How about the young Australian getting excueted in singapore...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/pm-...823373568.html

I sure do feel safe knowing Howards on the Job.

Are we doomed to become a protectorate by letting a foreign power determine our foreign policy, dictate our laws, decide our cultural values and patrol out borders?

Im afraid so, even if Howard get's voted out, Labour is going to do the same thing. Stongest opposition of Howard's new workplace "reforms" has come from the Unions themselves. Anti terror laws (Howard wanted a shoot to kill policy...a shoot to kill policy in Australia...WTF) have been strongly opposed by the media, the Greens and civil liberties groups. Labour meanwhile are sitting on thier arses twidling thier thumbs.

What really :wub: the hell out of me is that a large proportion of the people now complaining about the IR reforms, the new Anti-Terror legislation etc are the same people who actually elected Howard back into office a year ago because they fell for his blatant lie about being the only one capable of keeping interest rates down. What a complete and utter Furphy that one was. "Oh, I can ensure that global financial markets remain at a level that keeps interest rates low. Elect Labour into office and you'll see interest rates sky rocket!"

When will the Australian public stop falling for these spur of the moment lies and start remembering all the crap Howard has done over the last decade? GST, IR, Healthcare, etc all forgotten at eleciton time due to a) Boat People, b) Terrorists or c) Interest Rates!

The Australian voting public has a very short term memory! Argh!

Argh! indeed
What the hell is wrong with Australians these days...Have we turned into cowards? Are we that afraid of terrorism that we are going to let Howard ruin this island paradise of ours?

Does anyone remember a detailed exposition of the current IR 'reforms' in the last election campaign? No, me neither. Yet, here we are being bombarded with millions of dollars of propaganda about how it's going to be just peachy for workers to be employed for next to nothing, just like over in the US of A.

Yeah and we are paying for those ads too. Since when has it been accepted policy for the government to spend tax payer money on party propaganda. What kind of idiots does the Howard government take us for? The ads are a farce...Workplace reforms will create more jobs? Umm why do we need more jobs anyway? The unemployment rate is at 5.1%, and only increased to that recently IRC, and that was because the particpation rate fell, not because the economy lacks jobs...

Polling shows the average punter supports the 'Anti-Terrorism' laws, but this is on the back of an almost total silence from the spineless Beazley Opposition. Everyone from the churches, to old Mal Fraser to Bob Hawke, to various lawyers have condemned these laws. But Howard tried to get them passed with ten minutes reading and on Melbourne Cup Day. And when that failed he 'suddenly' found a specific terrorist threat that made their passage essential.

What a surprise!

Feigns surprise!

At least the morons in Washington and their dupes here on TWC have some (totally wall-eyed and idiotic) ideals to cling to while they pretend the neo-cons have some kiind of valid argument. All we have here are that moron Downer, the walking corpse Ruddock and John 'Truth Overboard' Howard.

Iam surprised that all the Pro War, Pro Bush people are staying well clear of this thread...or am I?

Funny you should call Jonny boy that...

Truth is absolute, truth is supreme, truth is never disposable in national political life.

[Hanno the Navigator]

Exactly, he went to Afganistan looking for Islam, found Al Queda, and had a backpacking holiday with his Al Queda mates. Now does that make him a top terrorist suspect? riduclous...

Suspect, yes. But most of these suspects were just that. Idiotic losers with a grudge who thought that it would all be like Rambo III. Those that were lucky found out that the food was bad, the water gives you diarrhea, the locals are not very keen about whitey jihad tourists, hardly anybody understands English and the chicks suck (or rather don't suck) before October, 2001 and went home without learning more than how to shoot an AK and some of their puerile dreams shattered for good. From the reports of those Westerners who tried the Taliban trip before 9-11, one gets quite good information on why most eager recruits quit sooner than later.

Hicks somewhat falls in a middle category. He had some jihadist experience with the KLA in Kosovo (courtesy of Uncle Sam), but the contrast between there and Talibanistan must have appeared all the starker for that (we had a whole lot of German neo-nazis join the Croatian Ustashe-type militias back then, and disgruntled Muslim immigrant kiddies went to fight for the KLA, naturally. They had a more friendly environment and less cultural barriers in the Balkans, however).

The main problem seems to be that the average US interrogater just gives a damn about the individual history of the person caught up in the Afghanistan campaign. 80+% of those detained were just ganged-up villagers (or worse, people who had been ratted by their neighbors keen on the rewards or their victims' pickup trucks) and other less-than-effective folk. The CIA/DIA machinery has allowed itself to become burdened down by meticulously stomping on each and every peasant who got caught with a rifle back in October, 2001, and thus shot itself in the foot trying to separate the chaff from the wheat. Given what I heard about said agencies' capabilities to deal with the cultural background of the detainees (close to nonexistent), I am not that much surprised that the heavy-duty boys get frustrated and use prisoners as punchbags.