The Chocolate Dog

I read an article in The Washington Post by writer Josh White this morning over my early a.m. coffee (As opposed to my late a.m., early p.m. and late p.m. coffee..I like coffee what can I say?);
"Australian David M. Hicks pleaded guilty to one charge of material support for terrorism during a brief military hearing Monday night, becoming the first Guantanamo prisoner to officially accept criminal responsibility for aiding terrorists since the detention facility opened more than five years ago."
You can find the complete article here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/26/AR2007032602439.html?r
This is a significant event in the controversial five year history of the questionably unconstitutional detention facility (In my opinion as well as that of many much more qualified to say so there is no question, the center is decidedly unconstitutional), no news in that. I wonder what the consequences of this will be.
This plea is an apparent victory for the Bush administration and supporters of the actions taking place at Guantanamo Bay however there is no gloating just yet. Air Force Col. Morris Davis, the chief prosecutor under the new trial guidelines is quoted as saying "I don't look at it as a victory," then he is also he is also quoted as stating that he is "… satisfied where we stand at this moment."
I'm sure he is.
The Bush administrations have defended the Guantanamo facility form its start. The Bush administration has continued to do so even after congress found the original Military Commissions Act unconstitutional in 2006 and drew up new rules for the Act (Though controversy continues over the MCA). To not see this as a decisive victory is definitely an exercise in understatement. I suspect their motives for such subtlety are founded in not yelling BINGO before the final number is called. There is still a great deal of undecided business going on here not to mention that David M. Hicks (The detainee i.e.; prisoner) has not yet been found guilty though I have no doubt that he will. A decision on the matter is expected in about a week. See how quickly you can expedite a trial if you suspend civil liberties and the constitutional rule of law. Hick's is facing a likely 20 year sentence in his native Australia where he will be transferred to serve his sentence. How THAT works I don't know…whose laws apply here? U.S.? Australian ? International? None? The answer seems to be the U.S. military's. Funny, I didn't know we were under martial law.
A note about Hicks's defense team. "The presiding officer ruled that his two civilian attorneys were not qualified to represent him in court, in part because one refused to sign a form he felt would compromise his ethical responsibilities." On can also presume that they were also not qualified in the eyes of the Commission because the Commission had NOT selected them. Besides we can't have ethics in a military "Court" now can we.
Both lawyers, Rebecca Snyder and Joshua Dratel, "separately stormed out of the courtroom." According to Josh Whites Washington Post article.
In summary I have to say I wonder just how valid this confession is. Facing a 20-year sentence and already having been jailed (Yes, I know…"detained") for 5 years I might just plead guilty to almost anything just to get the whole thing over with. This is especially true if I was convinced that I didn't have a snowflakes chance in hell of being found not guilty.