David Hicks' legal status could change, from prisoner to PM
http://groups.google.com.au/group/david-hicks-fan-club?lnk=

David Hicks broke NO AUSTRALIAN LAW

David hicks broke no Afghan Law

David Hicks broke no USA Law

David Hicks is innocent VICTIM of western media spin lies and endless
propaganda and christian / jewish anti Islam criminal ABUSE , no
different to the Christian Witch Hunts

we all KNOW who the REAL terrorists are


, sign up now and SUPPORT the David Hicks for PM team, we need REAL
med like David hicks as LEADERS

http://groups.google.com.au/group/david-hicks-fan-club?lnk= , tell the
real terrorists and USA puppets what you think of their LIES and
criminal abuse of a real Aussie HERO

Alison Caldwell reported this story on Wednesday, September 16, 2009
08:00:00


TONY EASTLEY: A leading international law expert wants the Obama
Administration to rescind charges levelled against former Guantanamo
Bay detainee, David Hicks.

Hicks, who was arrested in Afghanistan in 2001 and declared an enemy
combatant, eventually pleaded guilty six years later to a charge of
providing material support for terrorism.

After serving the remainder of his prison sentence in Adelaide, Hicks
is now a free man living in Sydney, but he's still occasionally
referred to as a "convicted terrorist".

Alison Caldwell reports that a high ranking American legal official
has told a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing in Washington, the
charge Hicks was found guilty of should be done away with.

ALISON CALDWELL: David Hicks was the first person to be tried and
convicted under the US Military Commissions Act of 2006. In March
2007, after five years in Guantanamo Bay, his legal team struck a deal
with prosecutors to secure his release.

Hicks would plead guilty to a single new charge of providing material
support to terrorism. Now the US Assistant Attorney General has said
the charge should be done away with. The US Senate Armed Services
Committee is examining the Military Commissions Act.

In a lengthy statement to the committee, David Kris said the charge
was now under question. His statement is read by an actor.

DAVID KRIS' STATEMENT (voiceover): There are serious questions to
whether material support for terrorism or terrorist groups is a
traditional violation of the law of war. The President has made clear
that military commissions are used only to prosecute law of war
offences.

Our experts believe there is a significant risk that appellate at
courts will ultimately conclude that material support for terrorism is
not a traditional law of war offence, thereby reversing hard won
convictions and leading to questions about the system's legitimacy.

ALISON CALDWELL: The Pentagon's top lawyer also agrees. Jeh Johnson
said the Pentagon no longer believes material support is a law of war
offence.

The Law Council of Australia expressed the same concerns two years
ago. President John Corcoran.

JOHN CORCORAN: The Law Council very much welcomes the US
administration's submission, to the US Senate's Armed Services
Committee, that the charge of providing material support for terrorism
is not a charge that should be brought before a military commission.

This is consistent with the advice that the Law Council obtained in
2007 from several renowned experts in the area of international law.

ALISON CALDWELL: The question is: will the Senate Armed Service
Committee adopt the advice and drop the charge from the bill? If it
does, there are those who believe David Hicks should then be
exonerated and no longer considered a convicted terrorist.

TIM MCCORMACK: He should be exonerated having been convicted of an
offence that not only the US administration, but now if this happens,
the Congress accepts is unknown in the law of war and not a sufficient
basis for having convicted him wrongly.

ALISON CALDWELL: Professor Tim McCormack is a lecturer in
international humanitarian law at the University of Melbourne. He
advised David Hicks' legal team on law of war issues.

TIM MCCORMACK: There would need to be litigation in the US to contest
the validity of the decision on the basis of new legislation which
removes an offence, unknown in the law of war at the time, that would
actually result in a substantive argument about the validity of the
charge as it stood in the law of war at the time that he pleaded
guilty to it, as well as the validity of the charge in terms of the
allegation that it was retrospective creation of law in violation of
fundamental principles of criminal law.

For me, it's just one example of the complexities that have emerged
from a system that was rushed from the start, was not thought through
properly; that was created ad hoc without really thinking through the
implications of it.

And unfortunately now the Obama administration is left with the legacy
of that.

TONY EASTLEY: The University of Melbourne's professor of international
humanitarian law, Tim McCormack, ending Alison Caldwell's report.