|
WSWS : News
& Analysis : Australia
& South Pacific
Australia: The torture of Jack Thomas
By Mike Head
28 August 2006
Use
this version to print
| Send this
link by email | Email
the author
Three judges of the Victorian Supreme Court on August 18 quashed
the terrorist convictions against a young Melbourne
worker, Jack Thomas. Their unanimous judgment recorded previously
suppressed details of the torture and emotional manipulation
inflicted on Thomas in order to obtain a blatantly illegal confession.
In early January 2003, Thomas was detained at Karachi airport
while trying to return to Australia. The judges noted: After
about 10 minutes, some men, dressed in military uniform and armed
with Kalashnikov rifles, arrived and he was taken to a four-wheel
drive vehicle; not handcuffed or shackled, but blindfolded
and hooded. Thomas was driven to a Pakistan military base,
where he was interrogated by two Pakistanis and two Americans,
who told him, I was being spoken about in high places but
nobody gave me any names.
Sometime later, he was taken, again blindfolded and hooded,
to some sort of mansion house, where he was held for
about two weeks in a cell that he described as a dog kennel
about the size of a toilet, with open bars, a concrete floor
and a gate that exposed him to the elements. For about three days,
he was starved of food and water.
When he was to be questioned at this location, he would
be moved from the cell into the back of the house and up some
stairs, shackled and handcuffed. On each such occasion, he was
taken to the same room and placed on a low stool, with his feet
padlocked to a large metal plate in the floor and with his hands
cuffed behind his back.
The first questioning session lasted from about noon to dusk.
The Pakistanis present commenced to threaten him by saying
that they would pour water on him and electrocute him, and that
he would be executed... On a number of occasions, the Pakistani
officials told him: Were outside the law. No-one will
hear you scream.
During the next session, Thomas was assaulted and almost choked
to death before he decided to cooperate with the authorities.
What changed my attitude was the short Pakistani officer
grabbed my hood by the collar and strangled my hood so that I
was suffocating and being strangled with my hood and the heat
and the stress was unbearable and I felt they were not going to
stop until I screamed out and they released me... I decided I
had better start talking, because this was really getting ...
Id gone way past my limit here.
Canberras complicity
At no point was Thomas charged with any offence. After two
weeks, he was placed on a light aircraft and flown to Islamabad,
the Pakistani capital, where he was permitted a consular visit
by Alastar Adams who was based at the Australian High Commission.
The Howard government had been informed of Thomass detention
without trial but refused to call for his release.
Even the so-called consular visit was supervised by officers
of the Pakistani Intelligence Directorate. Thomas said he did
not feel he could ask to speak to Adams alone. Despite this, Adams
later testified that Thomas did not appear to have been maltreated
and there was no indication of food or water deprivation.
Four interviews were then conducted between 25 January
and 29 January 2003, all, it appears, in the presence of Pakistani
and Australian officials, who emphasised to the applicant that
his future was dependent upon the extent of his co-operation.
The transcripts of these interviews indicate that the Pakistani
interrogators played a bad cop role, while the Australians
played the good cops.
At one point, a Pakistani interrogator said: Today you
should be more confident, more happy among your own people, right.
Theyre here to look after you. Thomas replied: Okay.
The interrogator said: But the problem is that they can
only look after you once you co-operate with them. Later,
an Australian Federal Police (AFP) officer told Thomas: About
all we can do for you is reflect back to our Pakistani colleagues
and to our Government as to whether we consider that youve
been co-operative or not.
Following the fourth interview, Thomas was taken to Lahore,
where he was held for three weeks and interrogated daily by Pakistani
officials and an American called Joe. Thomas described
his living conditions as disgusting. I was kept
in a cell smaller than my first one... It was wet, the blankets
were rotten, there were mossies everywhere, the meals were the
same every day. I couldnt eat.
Thomas refused to work undercover for the Americans, telling
them he would be killed as a spy, so Joe intensified
the pressure. He said I would be sent back over the border
into Afghanistan, where the latest technique to extract information
was twisting testicles. I love to hear the sound,
he said, when they twist their testicles. They just scream.
... I would be bashed and beaten every day... I just got to a
stage when I broke down because of what he was saying, especially
about my wife and sending agents to Australia to rape my wife.
Thomas was later returned to Islamabad, where a joint AFP-ASIO
(Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) team conducted
further interviews, exploiting the fear instilled by the Pakistani
and US authorities. The judges noted: The applicant was
kept in solitary confinement throughout the entire period of his
detention. For each of the six interviews, he was brought to the
interview location by his Pakistani captors, handcuffed, hooded
and shackled. Although these restraints were removed during the
interviews, they were replaced before he returned to his cell.
The judges said the AFP knew that unless it obtained a formal
confession, it had no evidence to lay charges against Thomas.
At this stage in the process, there was simply no evidentiary
foundation for any charge to be laid against the applicant. That
would only be possible if the applicant voluntarily made the necessary
admissions, under the requisite interview conditions.
In the weeks before the formal AFP interview on March 8, 2003,
the Australian High Commissioner, the Howard governments
representative in Pakistan, discussed with the Pakistani intelligence
service ISI how to make best political use of any confession
by Thomas to bolster the war on terror. These discussions
also focussed on dressing up the final interview to make it appear
voluntary.
The judges quoted a report by the Australian official Adams,
regarding a meeting between the High Commissioner, himself and
ISI on February 24, 2003:
The Paks are in no hurry to charge him while they can
bleed him for intelligence. Our own agencies want to get as much
as they can also. AFP wish to conduct a criminal interview in
which case they have to issue him a warning about whatever he
says may be used against him. They would wish to do this at the
end of the questioning cycle for obvious reasons... They [ISI]
do not appear all that interested in charging him, but rather
handing him over to Australia so that we can maximise the drama
of punishing home-grown terrorists.
The formal confession
Thomas was given no notice of the recorded AFP interview, which
took place in the same room as his earlier AFP-ASIO interrogations.
He was taken there hooded, handcuffed and shackled, as before.
Thomas initially protested that he needed legal advice because
he faced many years in jail. He told his interrogators: I
mean I cant spend that time away from my family without
having lawyou know legal advice, this is ridiculous.
But he eventually relented in a desperate bid to avoid the
even worse option of more torture, followed by indefinite detention.
He testified: I believed it was a crunchit was like
a test for me to return to Australia. If he failed the test,
I would remain in indefinite detention.
The judges concluded that Australian officials had been actively
engaged in coercing Thomas to record a confession. Pakistani
officials put explicitly to the applicant the possibility, on
the one hand, of returning to his family and, on the other, a
very different fate... Acquiescence alone would have been sufficient
confirmation in the circumstances but the Australian officials
went further and, by their remarks, impliedly endorsed what the
Pakistanis had said.
The AFP officers were also guilty of emotional manipulation.
On two occasions in the course of the joint team interviews, Thomas
had been, first, shown a photograph of himself with his wife and
daughter and, secondly, given a letter from his wife, and invited
to read it.
Those conducting the [formal] interview were well aware
of his earlier, but inadmissible admissions and knew something,
at least, of the treatment to which he had been subjected, including
the threats made against him and his wife by the American, Joe.
Given the High Commissioners role and the reference to
high places, there is every indication that the Australian
government sanctioned these abuses. What is indisputable is that,
acting on its behalf, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions
sought to secure convictions that depended entirely upon the completely
unreliable statements that Thomas made in his desperation to stop
the beatings, avoid being sent to Guantánamo Bay and be
allowed to go home.
In the case of David Hicks, the Australian citizen detained
in Guantánamo for nearly five years without trial, the
Howard government has been complicit in torture and other violations
of international law by the Bush administration. In Jack Thomass
case, it has gone one step further and sought to rely upon these
same criminal methods to secure a conviction in the Australian
courts.
See Also:
Australian court overturns "terrorist"
conviction based on torture
[22 August 2006]
Australian man jailed on evidence
derived from torture
[7 April 2006]
Australia: terrorism
trial of Jack Thomas to rely on coerced evidence
[18 August 2005]
Pakistan to release
Australian Jack Thomas after five months jail without charge
[10 May 2003]
Australian government
backs imprisonment of Melbourne man in Pakistan
[26 February 2003]
Top of page
The WSWS invites your comments.
Copyright 1998-2008
World Socialist Web Site
All rights reserved |