Just finished watching The President Versus David Hicks on SBS. It was a very interesting documentary. David Hicks’ letters to his parents provided remarkable insight into his mentality on the way to his being captured by the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and handed over to the US. Hicks’ father, Terry, aided by his son’s numerous letters, traced David’s footsteps from Pakistan across the border into northern Afghanistan. This must have been very scary, as people are still often killed in roadside ambushes. It became clear, from his letters, that David had been deluded into believing the Taliban’s extreme interpretation of Islam. But it was never clear that Hicks ever participated in terrorism of any kind (unless one holds that the mere belief in an extreme interpretation of the Qur’an, or any religious text for that matter, is a form of terrorism). The laws and legal terms invented by the US government to subvert the Geneva Convention and the US’s own laws is laughable. Criminals should be punished, but they must first be found guilty by a court of law, where evidence gained under stress and duress (otherwise known as torture) is not admissable.
The USA is now headed by a President who was not democratically elected. The USA has passed laws such as the USA-PATRIOT act, which undermine the freedoms upon which it was founded. It now seems that due legal process is a thing of the past in that country. It isn’t entirely clear whether or not US courts have jurisdiction over the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay or not. But common sense (which seems to often be lacking within the legal system), would say that US courts have jurisdiction over any person on a naval base belonging to the US. Certainly, the idea that there exists a black hole where the US government can do whatever it wants to anybody is both scary and sickening. Anyway, all this reminds me of Benjamin Franklin’s memorable quote:
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
