Was it any wonder?

Was it any wonder that David Hicks pleaded guilty to acts of "material support
for terrorism" brought against him under a contrived piece of retrospective
legislation put together by the Bush administration? I suspect that Hicks
realised the futility of hoping for a fair trial and having spent over 5 years
in Guantanamo decided to 'play the game' in return for his repatriation
and freedom after he has served the 9 month sentence now handed down to
him.

There were no new revelations in his confession and no explanation as to why
he had issued lengthy statements about mistreatment and severe abuses of
human rights in Guantanamo (the last statement less than a month ago).

Perhaps his recent actions are best explained by something his father said
a few months ago and not directly related to his confession:

"After the conversations we had with David you could see all he wants to do
is get home. If any of you put yourself in David's situation ... most of you would
be pleading guilty to something just to get out of the place."

Who can blame him? Not I but I know who I believe about the human rights
at Guantanamo and I also don't think this particular legislation bodes well
for future protection of human rights. It seems to imply that either you
are in support of the US and allies in any conflict or you are a terrorist regardless
of whether you happen to be fighting for a government / state.

Perhaps most telling of all, in return for this 'plea bargain' Hicks has had to agree
not to talk to the media in any way, shape or form. All in all, this has been an
obvious face saving exercise for the Australian government in an election year
and of course a huge relief to Bush not having evidence about Guantanamo produced
in any hearing.