"Failure to cooperate meant the loss of the ordinary necessities of living, such as showers, sufficient food, relief from the prospect of IRF'ing and other regular abuse visited upon non-cooperative detainees, access to reading material, and social contact (including receiving mail)." --Hicks Affidavit

I always find myself experiencing the same revelation, never ceasing to be amazed at what can happen here and how little is really said about it on the network news. I recently got the feeling again with David Hicks's military tribunal Guilty Plea, a plea he entered after spending five years in Guantanamo.

Thing could have turned out differently. The case of Canadian Maher Arar comes to mind. However, even after an apology from the Canadian Prime Minister (Stephen Harper) and $10.5 million in compensation, Arar is still hasn't received an American apology and is currently still on the "No Fly" list.

But with Hicks it's different right? He' s guilty, because, after all, he said so?
"I feel as though I'm teetering on the edge of losing my sanity after such a long ordeal, the last year of it being in isolation."--Hicks in a letter to his father 11-2-04.
I think after "teetering on the edge of sanity" for three years, after having his abuse "allegations documented at the Australian government's request" but only "investigated by American authorities," he is growing weary. I think after learning of increasing public support for him in Australia and after having the Australian government get a guarantee from Bush that if he had to serve a prison term it would be on Australian soil, he would have admitted to anything.

I Also think that, all at David Hicks's expense, it was a compromise between the two governments. John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, wants to look good before an election; the Bush Administration wants a guilty plea--they've had too many Maher Arars.