i offered up my innocence and got repaid with scorn

Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock recently appeared on the SBS program ‘Insight’ along with David Hicks’ military lawyer, military prosecutor, and his father Terry Hicks (link to the transcript here).

That Ruddock would even venture onto the program is surprising, and he deserves a small amount of credit for that. His answers to some of the questions put to him, however, simply reinforce the hypocrisy of the Australian government on the Hicks issue. For example, when challenged as to why Hicks couldn’t be tried in an actual court, the following exchange took place:

PHILIP RUDDOCK: The point I make is that he is entitled to a presumption of innocence and we’ve made that point all the time and the question is whether or not –

JENNY BROCKIE [SBS]: You haven’t altogether given him a presumption of innocence -

PHILIP RUDDOCK: The question is –

JENNY BROCKIE: No, no, let’s just stop there. The presumption of innocence has not been there from this government. There have been comments by the Prime Minister, by other ministers in your government that have clearly not indicated a presumption of innocence.

PHILIP RUDDOCK: Well, let me just say I speak as the principal law officer for the Government and I have never asserted guilt. What I have asserted is that there are serious charges, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence and those issues need to be disposed of. And the real question is whether or not these matters, having been raised, he ought to be able to have a day in court as quickly as possible.

This statement directly contradicts both the approach of the Australian Government to date, and statements made by any number of Australian and American representatives. For example, from the Age:

From the head of Guantanamo Bay, Rear Admiral Harry Harris: “I believe there are no innocent detainees here.” From former US Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld: “among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the earth”. From Treasurer Peter Costello: the case against David Hicks is “pretty straightforward”, “he wasn’t on a backpacker tour”. From Foreign Minister Alexander Downer: “Mr Hicks is a dangerous person.”

And of course, let’s not forget our newly-ethical PM, speaking at a press conference with good chum Dick Cheney here:

I cannot believe that he was on some kind of hitchhiking tour in Afghanistan. I don’t think any person who examines the facts could possibly believe that. And the charges against him are very serious, indeed. And countries that have fighting men and women in Afghanistan have every right to want those charges heard before a court.

There is a fundamental difference between the notions of actual innocence and presumption of innocence. There is no possibility that Howard, Ruddock, Cheney et al are so stupid that they don’t understand the distinction. Instead, confusion about the difference between the two notions (and the fact that there is a difference) is being exploited ruthlessly in public statements about Guantanamo Bay in order to blunt the constant, and largely accurate, criticism of the Guantanamo process from the legal profession, academia, civil libertarians and human rights organisations.

Ruddock’s decision to expose himself to direct, and most likely hostile, questioning was all too rare in modern Australian politics. If only the public, or the ‘unfriendly’ parts of the media, were given such access to the Prime Minister and other senior government figures on a routine basis.