Colonel Morris Davis [1] hasn't had a good run. His prosecution of David Hicks was thwarted by a plea-bargain which was apparently orchestrated by U.S. Vice President Cheney. His dislike for evidence obtained by torture was ignored by the Pentagon, and it turns out that Davis never wanted to proceed with Hicks' prosecution to begin with!

Colonel Davis appears to have been saving his vexations for an appropriate time, and the trial of one of Osama Bin Laden's drivers was the one that did the trick. While having no problems with the collecting of the evidence for the trial at which he was appearing. Davis has castigated the circumstances of Hicks' trial. His remarks are clear – he didn’t want to proceed with the "inherited" prosecution.

Standing at the prison gates as Hicks was released I felt the closest I ever want to feel to the sensation of attending a public hanging. That our state (South Australian) government was getting a "free kick" at Laura Norder politics by incarcerating and castigating the man had been galling enough. Then came the tar-and-feathering by the media, which seems to only have ended because of public outcry. Even then our state government hasn't gone out of its way to be of assistance. Actually, nobody has. Now it appears that, if the man whose job it was to convict the South Australian at Guantánamo had had his druthers, the trial that resulted in the “terrorism supporter’s” conviction and return to Adelaide would never have occurred.

Hicks is no longer gagged by his Guantánamo agreement to remain silent, which he has abided by in spite of being hounded by people trying to create the "scoop" of his first comment. He has not yet released any information from which he has gained personal profit. It will be interesting if he does, though, as then the onus will be on the SA and federal governments to prove that Hicks is indeed guilty of making profit from a crime. In other words, they have to prove that a crime was committed. With appeals and counter-appeals this could take years, especially if ASIO evidence becomes involved. Then somebody will ask where the evidence came from, and they'll refuse, and then an appeal will force disclosure, which they'll refuse. Look how long the Scott Parkin case has taken and you can see how long it would take for the Hicks case to go through the Australian legal system. All Hicks has to do is pick up a pay check from 60 Minutes and the avalanche is set in motion.

The proof of crimes that Australia has had so far is Hicks' Guantánamo conviction. It's the only Guantánamo conviction. Colonel Davis' testimony could well herald an annulment of the powers of the military tribunal and negate the only conviction it has produced. If Hicks, as Davis would have preferred, had never been tried he'd still be rotting in his Halliburton-built cage. So what happens if he's no longer considered to have been found guilty? No conviction, no crime? Will the Australian governments have to prove for themselves the charges for which US forces arrested him in Afghanistan? Never mind appearance monies ... how much do we owe Hicks for wrongful incarceration? Cornelia Rau got $2.7 million, so you'd guess that David would be in the running for a mil and a half at least.

With a happy ending on the story, the value of the movie rights would go through the roof! If Morris Davis's sworn statements that the Hicks trial and the whole Guantánamo set-up were compromised by political manipulations are true, quite a few politicians are going to be deeply embarrassed.

That Moe Davis has timed the release of his accusations to appear in the public domain so close to the US presidential elections gives you a fair guess as to who his targets are. Relax, Premier Rann and A-G Atkinson – he's not after you, most likely Bush and Cheney. However, next SA election your Laura Norder platform might have been tainted by a globally infamous wrongful incarceration. Voters may not be happy. I would suggest that if you don't want to be falling dominoes that it might be time for a grassroots rectification of the problem. A South Australian pardon, perhaps?

When validity of a conviction is challenged at such a level, how long before it falls? Australia should be acting now. The only trouble is that doing stuff like that wouldn't play well in the US press for the Republicans. But do you think that if Bush and Cheney decide that repealing Guantánamo is a vote-getter and face-saver, they're going to give a tinker's toss about reputations of a couple of Aussie pollies? Very red-faced and red-handed Aussie pollies? No, not at all