ho1ogram
09-04-2007, 04:31 AM
As if we didn't know that.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dont-keep-quiet-151-it-was-all-a-sham/2007/04/07/1175366542233.html
It is a condition of the transfer that David Hicks will be treated humanely and in accordance with the laws and international obligations of Australia.
In light of Hicks' undertaking that he will not communicate with the media in any way about his time at Guantanamo Bay, how is this consistent with Australia's international obligations?
In the new year, won't Hicks be a free man? How can he therefore be gagged for a further three months?
Under the regulations, the Government of the US alone is to have the right to decide on any application for review of the judgement or to pardon an offence.
This term on its own appears to indicate a willingness on the part of Australia to renounce part of its sovereignty.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dont-keep-quiet-151-it-was-all-a-sham/2007/04/07/1175366542233.html
It is a condition of the transfer that David Hicks will be treated humanely and in accordance with the laws and international obligations of Australia.
In light of Hicks' undertaking that he will not communicate with the media in any way about his time at Guantanamo Bay, how is this consistent with Australia's international obligations?
In the new year, won't Hicks be a free man? How can he therefore be gagged for a further three months?
Under the regulations, the Government of the US alone is to have the right to decide on any application for review of the judgement or to pardon an offence.
This term on its own appears to indicate a willingness on the part of Australia to renounce part of its sovereignty.