From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/31/AR2007033100279
.html

"An Australian who complained of his treatment at the U.S. prison at
Guantanamo was convicted of supporting terrorism, but will spend less than
a year in jail at home in a deal that requires his silence about alleged
abuse.

David Hicks, 31, who has spent more than five years at Guantanamo, was the
first of hundreds of foreign terror suspects held at the isolated prison in
southeast Cuba to be convicted, a case that also marked the first U.S. war
crimes conviction since World War II."

"Australian Prime Minister John Howard said the verdict vindicated
what his government had said _ that Hicks was a dangerous terrorist. But
his father, Terry Hicks, called the light sentence "amazing"
given that "the Americans have been touting David as the worst of the
worst."

"Something's not right. It shows how weak the evidence is in this
charade," he said.
"

A) Timing is interesting as this had become a pol hot potato in Oz &
there's an election coming up.

Given it's a Mil commission & thus under the control of the president,
every reason to think this was a "political sentence" in both
length & timing.

So this bod is so dangerous that he was held w/o charge or habeus corpus
etc in a mil prison outside of legal control for five years & now it
turns out that judging by his sentence he's less dangerous than your
average small time drug user.

Not merely that but he was convicted under a post dated law which breaks
most Anglo-Saxon legal rules.

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5