Remove Threat To Major Mori
Sydney Morning Herald
Monday March 5, 2007
IT IS hard to understand the belated threat to discipline Major Michael Mori, the military lawyer defending the Australian Guantanamo Bay inmate David Hicks. It is a spanner in the works just when the Hicks saga looked near resolution.
Major Mori has always been forthright. The Marine Corps officer has never shrunk from criticising the treatment of his client, or the deficiencies of the charges against the Australian, or the judicial shortcomings of the military commission which will hear those charges. Such outspokenness appeared to be a strength, an affirmation that Hicks could rely on a defending counsel who was clearly independent. Indeed Major Mori's directness appeared to be welcomed for just that reason by the Prime Minister, John Howard, and his Attorney-General, Philip Ruddock. Now, however, the US military's Chief Prosecutor, Colonel Morris Davis, has taken very public exception to Major Mori's behaviour. He has accused him of politicking, and says the major's superiors should consider charging him. Major Mori finds himself in a quandary, fearing he may have to abandon his defence of Hicks in order to defend himself. It would be a serious setback for the Hicks defence if a new lawyer had to take over. The US military must immediately clarify Major Mori's situation.Until Colonel Davis's intervention, it appeared a plea bargain might soon free Hicks. That prospect emerged with last week's decision to drop the charge of attempted murder against Hicks so he faces only the lesser charge of material support for terrorism. Government sources have told the Herald that in return for a plea of guilty to that charge, Hicks might get a penalty equal to the five-plus years he has already been detained. Hicks would be free - and the Government free of the mounting controversy over his treatment. The Hicks camp is not commenting on the prospect of a plea bargain; it does not want to show its hand. However, the alternative for Hicks could be many more years in Guantanamo Bay. There will certainly be a legal challenge to the validity of the special military commission which is to hear the charge against Hicks. The US Supreme Court may not resolve that challenge until 2009. If the reconstituted commission is, like its predecessor, found to be unsound, Hicks would then be as far as ever from a hearing. If Hicks is not freed on a plea bargain - and soon - the Australian Government must then demand he be sent home.
© 2007 Sydney Morning Herald