Australia v Hicks

Problems of mischaracterisation and misreporting aren't limited to the tabloid press and instantaneous media. Respected ABC journalist Leigh Sales (author of Detainee 002: the Case of David Hicks) told the Sydney Institute in 2007:

"....Myth 2 - Hicks was tortured at Guantanamo Bay. This is also incorrect and there is a very simple explanation why: Interrogators at Guantanamo Bay never had to use any harsh interrogation techniques on Hicks because he sang like a canary from the first day he was captured.

........

Hicks never faced some of the questionable techniques which have caused the Bush Administration so much grief - the dogs, the strobe lights, the sleep deprivation, the loud music and so on. Certainly other prisoners at Guantanamo did, Hicks did not…."

At the time she made that speech Sales' book stood alone, and it still stands as an "authoritative" source. It has been interpreted by some as adding "….weight to the probability that Hicks either invented or greatly exaggerated his claims of physical abuse at the hands of his American interrogators…" Although Sales suggested that a writer must get as many different viewpoints as possible so that the conclusions ultimately reflect a whole lot of different views, she admitted when asked about access to Hicks after his return from Guantanamo Bay that ".... I have not met him and I haven't spoken to him. He's still undecided about whether or not he wants to speak to the media, he's trying to keep a fairly low profile at the moment and figure things out......".

The Sales book is all about Hicks but he had no voice in it. In a letter to Sales of 15 February 2007 Hicks' lawyer, Joshua L Dratel, specifically said:

It would be unfortunate if your book adopted a negative slant, and accepted unconfirmed claims by persons with agendas that do not reflect the facts, because David and his lawyers have declined to cooperate with you in assembling your book. There are a multitude of prudent legal and other reasons why David is correct in choosing that path. Among them are the attorney-client privilege, the duty to adhere to instructions by a client, and the corresponding obligation to act in David's best interests."

Yet in May 2007 Sales claimed that Hicks "….ordered his lawyers and family not to co-operate with my book Detainee 002, a decision I believe is about protecting his future opportunities…."

Some favourable reviews when the book was released ignore the fact that it shed little light either on the situation in Guantanamo as it related to Hicks or on the sequence of events which saw him imprisoned. Why the rush to print if lack of co-operation from the subject meant more research was needed into the other side of the story? While the book was being written Howard was struggling with the Hicks monkey on his back. The book release in May 2007 coincided with Hicks' release from Guantanamo, but the monkey stayed on Howard's back until he lost the October 2007 election.

The Sales book told us little about Hicks the man or about his torture or about the conditions inside Guantanamo Bay Prison, but with Hicks coming out at the Sydney Writers' Festival we now have another version of his treatment in Guantanamo.

Retailers of Hicks' book are returning copies to the publisher, apparently for reasons unrelated to demand. What is driving this and why? What's that line in Subterranean Homesick Blues: "Johnny's in the basement mixing up the medicine. I'm on the pavement thinking about the government…"?

Hicks has never been shown to have been guilty of anything, and now that the system that incarcerated and abused him has been exposed for what it is (or, hopefully, was), a public acknowledgement of how Australia let Hicks down might be appropriate, particularly in light of his own testimony. But why should we take his word for it? We aren't suggesting we should, and we don't expect he would either.

The Justice Campaign has called for an independent and open investigation into the David Hicks case, with special consideration to be given to allegations of torture and the political interference associated with his eventual plea deal. We support that call and undoubtedly we will hear similar calls from other sources. Inevitably the diehards will resist an objective, neutral investigation, but popular demand for truth will eventually prevail. It will be interesting to see the evidence that emerges under the scrutiny of an independent inquiry about the extent of the complicity of parliamentarians, government officials and writers and reporters in the unlawful detention and torture of an Australian citizen they chose to forsake.

The time for the definitive book on Hicks will be after the independent investigation. And without detracting from the price he personally has paid, David Hicks is only a point of focus of a bigger issue. The time for Australians to ensure their government protects the rights of all of its citizens abroad is long past. An independent inquiry just may reveal the extent to which, and the means by which, compliance with that obligation has been compromised for political expediency.