Something Doesn't Add Up

David Hicks, aka Muhammad Dawood, was sentenced to up to seven years under the plea deal arranged with prosecutors, and yet he's actually only going to serve nine months?

He was tried by a military tribunal under a system created by President Bush after the Sept. 11 attacks that has been widely criticized as a violation of the prisoners' right to challenge their confinement in U.S. courts.

Australian Prime Minister John Howard said the verdict vindicated what his government had said _ that Hicks was a dangerous terrorist. But his father, Terry Hicks, called the light sentence "amazing" given that "the Americans have been touting David as the worst of the worst."

"Something's not right. It shows how weak the evidence is in this charade," he said.

Hicks had faced a maximum sentence of life in prison. He entered a guilty plea Monday night, but he was not formally convicted until the judge accepted his plea at Friday's session.

A panel of officers flown to Guantanamo for the sentencing Hicks deliberated for two hours before approving a sentence of seven years, the maximum allowed under the plea deal. After they left the courtroom, the judge, Marine Corps Col. Ralph Kohlmann, revealed all but nine months would be suspended.

Asked if the outcome was what he was told to expect, Hicks said, "Yes, it was."

The plea deal will send Hicks to a prison in Australia within 60 days. His sentence begins immediately, but Guantanamo commanders said there would be no change in his detention conditions before his departure.

Hicks' father is right that there is something wrong when prosecutors claim that he was the worst of the worst and yet receives only nine months in addition to the five years already served at GitMo.

This means that Hicks, who is 31, will be able to resume his deadly business of jihad within the year. How is this justice? Has he been rehabilitated? He might have cleaned up for his appearances before the tribunal but does he still hold to the precepts of jihad? Let's not forget why he was at GitMo in the first place - he fought with the Taliban and was alleged to have attended al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan. He was picked up along with foreign fighters in Afghanistan when the Taliban were routed in October 2001.

And yet, he receives only nine months? What was the sentencing judges thinking when they handed this down? I understand that they have more information available than what the papers and media are privy to, but this simply doesn't add up.