The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Jumping at shadows > Comments

Jumping at shadows : Comments

By John Tomlinson, published 17/7/2007

Detaining Dr Mohammed Haneef: rounding up so many people for questioning is hardly an example of intelligently using the draconian provisions of Australia’s terrorism legislation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All
After feeling increasingly uneasy about the length of time Dr Haneef was detained without charge, I was relieved to hear that the magistrate had granted bail, with excellent and clear reasons for doing so.

When I then heard that his visa was to be withdrawn and he was to be placed in detention at Villawood, my first reaction was, very simply, anger. Then disbelief, mixed with shame and a growing feeling of impotence in the face of a set of government actions that continue to impinge on the rights of Australian citizens and guests.

I have found at least two orphan sim cards - I don't interrogate my friends about their associates - I want a government that reflects at least some sense of independent thought, not one which responds deviously to directions from Britain, still.
Posted by Ghillie, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 9:33:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't be so sure about the Federal Court putting Andrews in his place. Legally, the character assessment process/visa process is a seperate issue to the bail issue. So he's on pretty solid legal ground.

Morally he's a complete waste of space however.
Posted by James Purser, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 9:38:50 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maybe people would be happy for us to become like London or France where it is to little to late to deal with terroism. The same people will then blame the Government for doing nothing.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 10:14:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tony Burke's unseemly rush to associate the Opposition with Minister Andrew's disgraceful action was deeply disappointing. We must hope, too, that the excellent Indian doctors working in our system do not decide that Australia is not worthy of their services, and leave.
Posted by Johntas, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 10:50:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am absolutely flabbergasted at the lack of compassion and humanity that Australia's government is displaying regarding this issue. So now, let me get this: if i had a distant cousin overseas who i contacted on the odd occassion, and he/she was found to be engaged in terrorist activities (unbeknownst to me) does that mean that i am guilty of having blood ties with this person? Even if no evidence was found in a court of law that I had any connection with their actvities? I don't get this. Hey, I am very disappointed that the opposition party is backing the decision to keep this man in detention, why dosen't the Labor party amalgamate with the current mob, and stop pretending that they are any different? As far as I am concerned they are one and the same. I love this country, and I am glad that my family migrated here, but this kind of thing is going to choke us all. Um, have I committed a 'thought crime?? Tonee
Posted by Joaquin, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 10:59:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
runner, umm the UK and France are a completely different kettle of fish. The UK has had to deal with attacks from the IRA for a long time and France, its Algerian problems.

This isn't dealing with terrorist problems. Going on the public information put forward by the AFP and government, and the fact that the charge against Haneef is basically giving his second cousin a sim card, the move by Andrews to rescind his visa after the Dr got bail can only appear to be a "bugger you" move.

If the government has any evidence that Haneef is anything more than an innocent, then I would love to see it.
Posted by James Purser, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:06:28 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kevin Andrews input is pretty much predictable with this government intent on increasing the fear factor effectively exemplified with 'runners' post....
We ordinary citizens cannot be privy to the 'advice' he received from the AFP.
Come to think of it John, I too have three or four old SIM cards in superceded mobile phone models, none of which have credit on them but who knows if I dispose of them without careful thought I too might find myself in breach of these draconian laws.
No one disputes the need for Australians to be vigilant given the Howard Government's anti-Islam / pro-USA foreign policy that does little to deter a terrorist attack, the application of these anti-terrorist laws is an over reaction to say the least.
My response is.... Howard and his cronies have got to go..bring on the election. I think I will send Philip Nietzke a donation towards his election campaign to oppose Kevin Andrews ...
Posted by maracas, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:12:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are all entitled to our opinions in a democratic country: even those of us who seem more concerned about the “rights” of terror suspects than they are with the rights of Australians to go about their business, safely, in their own country.

Perhaps Mr. Tomlison and his 30,000 documents should be checked. That shouldn’t worry us any more than the current arrest and questioning of a foreigner with connections to terrorism, no matter how tenuous.

To talk about “abuse of due process and justice” where there is even a hint of terrorism and danger to Australia and Australians is madness.

Fortunately, hairy men with queer ideas don’t hold much sway with sensible Australians.
Posted by Leigh, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:18:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IS THE GOVERNMENT HIDING KEY INFORMATION AGAINST HANEEF?

For once I agree with the author that the Haneef case appears to be an abuse of due process and natural justice. It looks like the Government is riding over the judiciary and respected legal principles on slender evidence and with pre electoral timing. Why Haneef is not being extradited to the UK where the terrorists incidents and SIM card activity occurred also suggests our Government's political opportunism.

A significant error by the author is that the bombing in question occurred in GLASGOW not Edinburgh. Its like mistaking Melbourne for Sydney. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6278318.stm . Attempted bombings also occurred in London round the same time (late June).

It may turn out to be key issue where the author says:

"Minister Andrews claimed that he had come to this decision after information was supplied to him by the Australian Federal Police. Such information was, presumably, identical with that placed before the magistrate who set Dr Haneef’s bail conditions."

What may have occurred is that for reasons of national security the Government may be keeping extra information about Dr Haneef's motivation and connections away from judicial scrutiny and naturally from the public.

This would be a possibility if the Government wishes to protect sources of the information - say informants in Britain and phonetaps in Australia and/or Britain. An added reason to protect sources is because they may also be damning for the would be Glasgow/London bombers.

It may therefore be a case that there is strong evidence against Haneef but it can't be revealed. If so this is never very satisfactory legally and a constant problem where counterterrorist evidence is collected by highly secret means.

On the other hand Haneef's case may be as political as it appears. He may plead guilty to avoid the usual 2 year court case and get out of gaol shortly after the Election.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:33:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Australia is the country of my choice, and I was pleased to become an Australian citizen in 1965.

However, the way Dr Mohamed Haneef has been treated by the Hon. Kevin Andrews and the legal system modified by the Howard government by the so-called anti terror laws is deplorable, akin to political abuse of power.

What has happened to the concept of 'innocent until proven guilty'?

What has happed to respecting the judicial system and accepting the verdict of the magistrate and allowing Dr Mohamed Haneef bail?

No, I'm disappointed by your political action to revoke his visa and therefore lock him up in as an undesirable. Why should other Indian doctors, and other professionals stay in Australia?

Why would overseas students want to come and study in Australia?

Why would I, like many immigrants who arrived from Europe many years ago, stay in Australia?

I agree with Dr John Tomlinson that "There is a growing fear, among thinking circles in Australia, that the current police raids are being driven by Islamophobia or a more diffuse racism". This Islamophobia is promoted by the Howard government, to the detriment of the wellbeing of Australia's status in the world.

The Howard government is creating fear amongst Australians and possibly is making millions of enemies abroad.

Maybe announcing that we are a greater terrorist target due to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and therefore we are bringing our troops home, will ensure that Australia is a just and humane society.
Posted by Humanist, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 11:39:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is decent of you to give the government the benefit of the doubt plantagenet but I'm afraid their track record makes it difficult for me to do that.
With one silly decision Howard has managed to get the Indian people and government offside and no doubt other governments, institutions and people in the region.
It is not just Indian doctors that might be frightened off but people from all professions from overseas, particularly from the middle east and the sub-continent.
Rudd and Burke's me tooism reminds me of being in South Africa in the
1970's when in the name of fighting terrorism (black aspirations)the white opposition went along with the aparthied government.Howard would have felt comfortable in that government.
Andrew's office informed me that they had been inundated with 'hostile' calls this morning and Burke's office sounded nervous.Burke had asked his office to record the views and names of all callers on the issue. When I gave the opinion that Rudd had to start showing a bit of gumption and leadership my interlocular did not demur.
Leigh would you take your expressed opinion if it was your son or daughter being detained on the basis of the information available to us?
If the AFP has additional information available to it,why wasn't it put to the magistrate?
Terrorism or not we are on a slippery slope when we allow governments to carry out activities and detain people on the basis of secret information which because of national security or for some other reason, which we cannot test, must be kept secret.
This type of governance suits the government and from such governence you get Hicks,Rau,children in detention and the F35.
The only bright thing out of this is the knowledge that what worked for Howard in the past will not work for him now as we saw from his invasion of the NT.
Perhaps the realisation that Howard has reached his use by date might be enough for him to discover his latent courage.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 12:24:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
plantagenet writes, "It may therefore be a case that there is strong evidence against Haneef but it can't be revealed. If so this is never very satisfactory legally and a constant problem where counterterrorist evidence is collected by highly secret means."

I would say, "tough caca. Let him go."

"We have lots of evidence but can't reveal it. For... um... national security! Trust us, it's for your own good." Yeah, thanks Comrade Party Chairman, we totally trust you, really. If Ministers of the Crown are to be able to detain people without trial or charge, without judicial oversight of any kind, then we may as well just go back to 1214, before the signing of the Magna Carta - when the King could seize and imprison anyone at will, and seize their property. We may as well abolish the entire court system, jury trials, elections, the lot.

We live in a democracy, with a rule of law. The legislature creates the law, the executive signs legislation, the judiciary interpret the law, that's the way it goes. Somewhere in there, the people elect the legislature, view the judicial process in public trials, and there we have the basics of our parliamentary democracy.

It's better that ten guilty men go free, than that one innocent man be punished unfairly; no exceptions are made for people who kill for terrorism rather than for money or passion. To ensure that, we have presumption of innocence, and judicial review of detention. We don't leave it all up to one man to decide everything.

We're supposed to be a democracy. If I wanted nonsense like this I'd go and live in Zimbabwe. Old Mugabe imprisons "terrorists" without trial, and claims the evidence against them can't be revealed because of "national security".
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 12:29:30 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I find this a difficult one to read. My first reaction was of disgust at the clumsy and insulting way it is being handled, but there are one or two aspects that worry me.

As I see it, the situation is more complex than simply saying "is there evidence immediately available? No? Off he goes then"

The failed bombings in London and Glasgow were linked, and arrests were made very quickly following the Glasgow airport attack. The Washington Post summarized the position last week as follows:

"The eight suspects detained by police are highly educated and have overlapping family, work and school links. Six are foreign doctors or trainee doctors working in British hospitals; two of the doctors inquired about continuing their medical training in the United States. The suspects include a husband and wife, and three members of an Indian Muslim family."

What concerns me about the case is the speed with which the team was rounded up. A connection as tenuous as a ten-month-old SIM card given to a cousin would hardly have been made quickly enough to have been the sole reason for an urgent call to the AFP to haul him in.

I can easily envisage a scenario where the link with those arrested in the UK is strong enough to allow suspicion, but not strong enough to make a complete case, either for local charges or for extradition.

One of the issues front-and-centre in the UK right now is the need to move the detention-without-charge period for suspected terrorism from 28 days up to 90, to allow time for investigation of the complex connections between conspirators. The international nature of these connections would be an example of why the police feel they need this extra time.

The sad part is that if the Government had only a shred of credibility left, we might have given them the benefit of the doubt. It is, after all, an issue of potential terrorist activity on Australian soil. But they have spent many years squandering our trust, which is why we always ascribe the worst motives to their actions.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 12:52:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Plantagenet opines

"What may have occurred is that for reasons of national security the Government may be keeping extra information about Dr Haneef's motivation and connections away from judicial scrutiny and naturally from the public".

Why then have the AFP put a some what weak case to the judiciary seeking an extension if they had more damnning evidence that would have swayed the Magistrate into keeping the poor bugger in porrideg for a few more days?

- in fact why have a judiciary if this is the case if this is the manner in which the Government wants to go about its business?

Andrews can exercise the provisions of sec 501 without justification - he will not reveal if his decision was based on information over and above what the AFP presented to the Magistrate - it is unlikey, if there is any new material, that we will hear anything about it .... possibly ever.

And the mealy mouthed ALP are no better -
Posted by sneekeepete, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 1:02:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Correction: ...Rudd to discover his latent courage.
BH
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 1:49:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It's better that ten guilty men go free, than that one innocent man be punished unfairly; no exceptions are made for people who kill for terrorism rather than for money or passion."

Funniest thing I heard of in years.

I think one of the bomber of Sept 11 was let go by US custom about a month before the WTC bombing for exactly that reason.

The same rule that applies to our police do not apply to terrorists, Osama is not going to ask whether people follow the Sharia law before he execute them en mass, be it in Iraq, Bali, Kuwait, Afganistan, New York, London, Madrid or Paris.

While I do have a problem with people being jailed incorrectly, I would prefer that to happen to 1 in 11 people rather than to explain to the family of victum of the next terrorist attack, that we "Choose to ignore history and are doomed to repear it"
Posted by dovif1, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 2:07:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To quote Peter Beattie.

"I don't intend to be critical of them other than to say, for God's sake explain to Australians why you have taken this course of action."

All Kevin Andrews has done is to re-enforce the feeling that the Government is playing politics.

Stupid men deserve to get voted out.
Posted by ruawake, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 2:08:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having endured the disquieting effects of bomb scares, evacuations and driving past IRA bomb targets within hours of people being killed in the UK, I have no regrets that the Australian government has acted forcefully in quarantining a person may be complicit in supporting terrorists.

I note there are a lot of whiners and civil-libertarians complaining about the detention of this prospective terrorist supporter. I further note a lot of folk writing about the curtailment of his right to fair trial, presumption of innocence ands alluding to curtailment of habias-corpus.

I would note that the rights of bomb victims everywhere are not respected by terrorists or their supporters. A bomb victim is given no right to a fair defence by any bomber, no notice and no consideration by bombers or their scumbag supporters.

As for “due process”, Haneef is not a Australian citizen and can be presumed to hold no fealty to Australian values. That he seems to have been closely involved with terrorists is enough to hold him for as long as it takes to either clear his name or verify his complicity.

Having lived with the effect of IRA terrorist outrages in UK, I am only too pleased with the government’s response to this potential terrorist. I would further note his “detention” has been subject to judicial review in accordance with Australian statute. I see his wife is now complaining that the Australian government are “terrorists” – well if she feels so strongly, let her go back from whence she came and avoid the exposure to those bad terrorists, who are after all, far less likely to blow her up than her husbands cousin (as demonstrated).

If the "price" of a bomber-free or bomber-curtailed society is a risk of few more days extra without being charged, then I think it is a fair price for us all to be prepared to pay.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 2:45:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge

Haneef's wife is back where she came from, India. Haneef was picked up leaving Australia to go to India, when he is eventually deported he will be sent to India.

Don't you find this ironic?

You correctly point out that his detention was under judicial review, the AFP decided not to apply for a further extention of time as expected, they charged him. What was the conflict of interest that may have disqualified the magistrate? We will never know.

A judge reviewed the evidence presented and granted bail. Again fair judicial process. (David Eastman was granted bail for murdering AFP deputy commissioner Winchester as well).

So its OK to have people charged with murder on bail but we have to lock up someone who was such a threat to Australia that he was about to leave.

The man is obviously intelligent, you don't get to be a doctor held in high regard by your peers and patients by being a dummy. If he knew anything about the UK bomb attempt don't you think he would have left Australia before the failed terrorist actions?

Something stinks, as it usually does when Kevin Andrews is involved.
Posted by ruawake, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 3:32:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Ten guilty men" let go can create bloody chaos, murder whereas one "innocent"man charged will eventually be freed and will not create such disorder. How can people be so thick?
Looking at the horrors that have occurred overseas and to our own in Bali, I am glad to see every suspect given attention.
So he gave his relations his Sim Card, he had lived with them, surely he would have had some idea of their aims.
There are too many in this country who would rather see Australians suffer grief than have their owned screwed idiology upset.
Once they would have been called fifth columnists.
Posted by mickijo, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 3:40:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whichever way the government had jumped on this one it would have been criticised - and probably by the same people who say that all we need to do to cease being a terrorist target is get out of Iraq. Really?
Australians tend to believe that we are not a terrorist target, that we are insulated from all the nasties in this world. These things do not happen in Australia...or do they? Could they?
When people like Lex Lasry and Julian Burnside get air time to criticise the government they do so knowing that they can say pretty much anything they like. They are QCs. People will believe almost anything they have to say. They carefully avoid telling people that they are not in full possession of the facts - or lack of them. They have not heard the evidence - or lack of it. Neither has the writer of this article.
One thing we can be pretty certain of however there is that there is more to this than a ten month old partly expired SIM card. To suggest, as one writer in the Australian did, that it is akin to handing over left over time on a parking ticket is ridiculous. These were Haneef's cousins. He had lived and worked with them. Did he really know nothing about them? The man may well be innocent but the current charge may also be nothing more than a holding charge and there may be other charges to come. We have not been told and we probably will never be told.
Those endeavouring to pressure the government though would be the first to complain if a terrorist act was committed here.
Posted by Communicat, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 4:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It should be noted that the Crown has not alleged that Haneef is a member of any terrorist group, nor that he had any knowledge of any planned crimes. He's just "associated" with them. Like, say, if some guy flips out and shoots a dozen people in the mall, his brother's associated with him.

But suppose Haneef were actually an accused terrorist: I fail to see why someone who's accused of planning a murder for money or passion can be given the presumption of innocence, but someone who's accused of planning a murder for political reasons can't be. Or do you guys support abolishing the presumption of innocence for everyone, whatever the accusation? Shall we abolish juries, too? After all, the Minister knows best, yes?

Some people are very keen to toss aside their liberties. I suggest a visit to the terrorists' main supporters in Saudi Arabia to see how you like a life without jury trials or presumption of innocence. Those who want to deny the accused their rights under law are far closer to the actual terrorists in their ideas than they are to civilised Australians. Terrorists don't believe in fair trials, either.
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 5:18:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Their seems to be more that a 'Guilt by Association' hint comes from some of the good people on here, not a healthy attitude for a country such as ours. And Col Rouge, "prospective terrorist supporter", well if he's "prospective", why is he in not in "prospective" custody?. You may well be a prospective Laureate,better get that prospective poem into prospect.
Posted by Lang Mack, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 5:56:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is more than a hint here that the process itself hasn't helped.

>>the AFP decided not to apply for a further extention of time as expected, they charged him<<

Investigations like this cannot be easy, there are a number of dots to join, and they all have to be carefully examined. It isn't a matter of "guilt by association", but "suspicion by association", and we would be poorly served if we allowed our police to do a half-baked job.

It is of course possible that the AFP considered it beyond the bounds of probability that he would be given bail, so charged him instead of applying for additional investigation time. After all, from a PR viewpoint the headlines would become increasingly unpleasant, the longer he was detained without charge.

So the balancing act was i) ask for an extension and face increasingly difficult headlines vs. ii) place a charge of sufficient seriousness that bail would be unlikely.

They chose to place the charge, which prima facie (his cousin looks as though he were up to his neck in the failed bombings) was sufficient to label him a potential terrorist threat for whom bail would not be appropriate.

This was of course a win-win stragetgy, since if bail were not granted, the ball then landed firmly in the Government's court.

The Government was then faced with the choice whether to let him wander around - without passport - and take the risk that he would do a runner, or take the action they did and face the inevitable backlash.

A couple of years ago they might have been able to present this as a plus - strong security and all that - but given that they have lost almost their entire stock of credibility, it has turned into a lose-lose for them.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 7:04:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The people who get my sympathy in this whole sordid mess are the Brits. I had no idea life was so tough over there in Old Blighty. Not so long ago the Brits were at the cutting edge of technology which was represented by the Concorde. Hot on the heels of Concorde being scrapped comes the news that Brits have mobile phones but no SIM cards. They are forced to rely on the generosity of relatives and friends to supply those neoteric gizmos.
Posted by Sage, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 7:23:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles,what you wrote has sensible points in you contribution, however "suspicion by association", for Heavens sake, that would apply to you, me and every other person, and we aren't in custody. The way this farce is being played out, for political advantage, would it not be fair to consider my statement as I put it?.
Posted by Lang Mack, Tuesday, 17 July 2007 8:36:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is facism, pure and simple. Anybody who can't see this is either themselves a fascist or is as dumb as a rock.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 7:38:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushwracker

The definition of fascism is
"A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."

The last I look there was no stringent socioeconic control, Kevin Rudd is still running around and is in support of the Federal police, we have no problem with Indians.

"Suspicion by association"?
a. there was an attempted bombing in Scotland
b. the attackers planned to use mobile phones to detonate the bomb
c. one of the bomber had a SIM card owned by the defendant at the time of capture.
d. the perpertrator of the bombing are all doctors
e. the defendant's wife went back to india before the bombing, he try to get out of the country within a week of the bombing

I think there is sufficient evidence to at lease hold the defendant for a longer length of time, to ensure he is not a terrorist. If we let him go and he go and bomb a train in India and kill a thousand people, the same idiots will be jumping up and down saying the government let him go.
Posted by dovif1, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 8:41:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have just read the report of the first AFP interview with Haneef as published in The Australian which can be found at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22093642-601,00.html. There is also the full transcript which I will leave to experts like Plantagenet.

The reporter implies that if Dr Haneef had not panicked and drawn attention to himself by attempting to telephone the British Police to confess that it was his SIM card he could have travelled to India unimpeded. Dr Haneef sounds naive and exaggerated the importance of the connection between himself and his second cousin. I think he is better off in India with his wife beside him telling him what to do.

PS how responsible should we be for the actions of our second cousins? I am particularly vulnerable as I have hundreds of second cousins.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 9:21:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I forgot to comment on the wierdness of police transcripts being leaked to newspapers. Is this a federal policeman who is sympathetic to Dr Haneef's plight? Is it a political leak? What is the motive for the leak?
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 9:24:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WHO ELSE RECEIVED THE TRANSCRIPT?

billie

Thanks for the compliment. However my area of knowledge is not the police or the minutiae of the law, but more about the use and abuse of intelligence organisations, their activities and product.

My amateur view is that the 142 page transcript seems:
- to be largely a piece of marginal evidence
- would not normally be sufficient to incriminate anyone regarding a serious crime
- let alone the handing over (without criminal intent) of a sim card
- in a foreign country
- a year ago.

The politics surrounding the Haneef case are more interesting to the Government. GUILT BY ASSOCIATION is the theme:

- Haneef is another Indian Doctor in Queensland who, owing to Patel, already have a bad name;
- Beattie is Labor, has been hurt by the Patel case, and the Haneef case can only serve to revive bad memories of Labor on this
- Rudd is Labor from Queensland, who in earlier times worked for Queensland Labor
- Queensland is a key marginal State for the Federal election where a swing to the Coalition is sorely needed
- the Liberal may assess, rightly or wrongly, that the racism (against dark skin) fear of terrorism nexus has special traction in that State. A kind of Tampa like basic instinct which prompt peoples to vote Coalition.

[more to follow]
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 3:32:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
THIS IS WHO [I THINK]

Interesting events today where Commissioner Keelty (usually a good bloke) claims that only his (AFP) staff, the prosecution and defence teams have had possession of the leaked Transcript.

I think is highly likely that the Transcript would have also been supplied to other essential counter-terrorism areas with an obvious need-to-know including MI5 and Scotland Yard (the attempted terrorism and Sim card incident DID occur in the UK after all). Keelty may not have seen it prudent to mention that because that is a National Security matter.

The AFP would have been remiss if a copy also didn’t go to ASIO (the head of ASIO, Paul O’Sullivan, is John Howard’s former chief adviser...) and Ruddock's own Department - Attorney Generals (which is required to keep abreast of the legalities of Federal cases).

Ruddock today blamed Haneef’s defence team for any leaks.

It goes without saying that in the run-up to elections political leaks occur - almost always from Minister’s offices. The AFP is, by custom, asked to investigate – then the investigation of politicians and/or their staffs is dropped after the Election.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 3:37:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I read the entire transcript and it seemed to me that Haneef was being open and answered all questions honestly.

The thing that gets me is that he tried on at least 4 times to call police in the UK to tell them where he was and that he was about to travel to India.

Does this seem like someone trying to flee the country?

I agree about the attack on Qld Labor, they tried to say it was Beatiies fault that he was here, until Teflon pointed out that it was the Federal Govt. that had the duty to screen people.

Why are Aruran Vinayagamoorthy, Sivarajah Yathavan, Arumugam Rajeevan free on bail? Oh I forgot Tamil Tigers are not a terrorist organisation (according to Ruddock).
Posted by ruawake, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 3:54:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As I understand it the transcript was leaked by his own lawyer - but that is only part of the story.
Posted by Communicat, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 5:42:29 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Communicat airily says: "As I understand it the transcript was leaked by his own lawyer - but that is only part of the story."

"As I understand it...?

How can Communicat expect us to believe that allegation - or lie? What does he base his understanding on?

The lawyer has today publicly, repeatedly and categorically denied leaking the material. And he knows the considerable penalties for doing so. What would he gain compared with what he would lose?

Here's Greg Barns' assessment of the situtaion in Crikey.com today:

"Law enforcement and security agencies have a long history of leaking material to suit their case, and seeking to influence the community climate. And one can never rule out the possibility that government ministers also leak material directly or indirectly in such cases for political ends.

"So the accusation that Dr Haneef’s lawyers are responsible for The Australian’s front page coup today should be taken with a grain of salt.

"There is also an irony in Mr Keelty’s protestation this morning that the leak of the interview with Dr Haneef undermines the judicial process. Surely Mr Keelty’s political masters have done that spectacularly over the past few weeks with their jack-boot approach to Dr Haneef and their gross disrespect of Magistrate Jacqui Payne’s decision to grant him bail."

Given the state of the polls three months out from an election, experience suggests we ought to look closer at the dirt units set up in at least two Ministerial offices as a source of the leak.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 6:29:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol

Haneef's lawyer has admitted he leaked the transcript and that it was entirely legal for him to do so.

Why Keelty said what he did is odd, surely the transcript is in the public domain as it was tendered in open court during the bail hearing.

Stephen Keim , Haneefs barrister said he made the transcript public because the AFP had been selectively leaking parts of it.

The AFP has been politicised, like every other Govt. institution. Howard is to blame yet again.

It is Keelty and Howard who should be condemned.
Posted by ruawake, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 6:42:07 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes I was quite wrong - it is now quite clear that Haneef's barrister (not his solicitor) has admitted he leaked the transcript. The solicitor protested his innocence this morning but it looks like his colleague had pulled the rug from under him. So I eat humble pie.

Should I apologise to the Federal Police and the two Ministers? I should, and do, in this instance. But I think Greg Barns' comments that I quoted earlier are still pertinent. Leaks from law enforcement and security agencies have been common and government ministers have also been known cynically to leak material in such cases for political ends.

And Barns' remains: Government Ministers and the PM have adopted a jack-boot approach to Dr Haneef and to the judicial process; and they do this for political ends, not for the sake of national interest.

I think this whole fiasco demonstrates the importance of maintaining open processes and public accountability. The separation of powers has never been more important.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 8:00:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good on the barrister. This is a political showtrial, making political counter-tactics perfectly appropriate.
Posted by bushbasher, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 8:05:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,FrankGol and ruawake sum up my thoughts on this issue. Keelty should not be heading up the AFP which is now thoroughly politicised. It has no parliamentary oversight and to all intents and purposes answers to PM&C (Howard). It will take years to overcome the present culture and that is not likely to happen under Rudd.
A major problem is the nature of the relationship the AFP has developed with their Indonesian conterparts and the TNI. The Indonesian framework all too often applies and when the stakes have been high the TNI have played them for fools; they are past masters at it having dealt closely with the Australian military for 30 years or so.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 9:07:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“We are a greater terrorist target due to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan”
True, but over simplistic.

This is one reason we are a terrorist target, another reason is because of the United -Nations and our involvement in intervention in conflicts around the world. The only reason we are not at war with Indonesia at this time is because we give them billions in aid and our politicians did a deal with their politicians to call off the Indonesian army before they ever sent the Australian troops in to East Timor. A huge fight broke out over the decision in the Indonesian parliament and was shown on the news at the time.

We ‘ve just been lucky so far that the armed groups in the Solomons and Serbia , Rwanda etc. have been fairly impotent at taking on the military might of the West.

The United nations is a toothless tiger when it is not backed up by the Western military.

A QUESTION:- If there was a nation backed up by allies who were every bit as powerful as the West or even more so,who decided to do some ethnic cleansing like they did in Serbia would the united nations and the West risk their hostility by going in to stop the slaughter knowing that the superior military might of this nation would then be directed at them? This is what has happened with The Arabs, the West is being targeted for their support of Israel .
The Arabs HAVE been able to direct their hostility at the West in this case due to unlimited financial support given to them by a Saudi Prince (Bin Laden) and also because they have many recruits already living in the West.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Glen Milne in the Australian put it this way.

“So, Haneef is a known associate of two men who allegedly tried to blow up central London and drove a car loaded with petrol bombs into Glasgow airport. Not only that, he's connected to them via the mechanism used to try to detonate the bombs. On what reading of these facts can you argue against laws designed to at least pick Haneef up and subject him to a sustained period of questioning?”

Those of you who are rabbitting on about being held responsible for second cousins misdeeds or for giving away phone credit are missing the point.

I don’t know if Haneef was actually involved in supporting the attacks, neither do any of you. The minister has admitted that important evidence that was not put before the court was available to him when he made the decision to rescind the visa of Haneef.

It is easy to imagine many situations where evidence that was not of a standard required in criminal proceedings (ie beyond reasonable doubt) would not be put before a court. The most obvious scenario concerns national security, especially the protection of sources during an ongoing investigation.

Why should we take a risk on a person who’s not a citizen and who’s family doesn’t live here
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 18 July 2007 11:26:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any suspected enemy plot against the security of the nation by members of our self proclaimed enemies, The Muslims, is a matter for the Government who are responsible for the security of the nation in time of war; (and we ARE are at war, something the civil libertarians cant seem to grasp).

Personally I think we are being extremely tolerant in letting any one from muslim countries actually stay here when we are at war with their people. It would make more sense if we protected ourselves from terrorists by expelling all of the robe wearing muslims for a start and locking down our borders, than fighting some unwinnable war in a foreign country. Why should our soldiers who are our sons and daughters die in an overseas war solely because we will not lock down our borders. Their are civil liberties and then their is common sense.

Deport Dr. Mohammed Haneef, people from enemy countries shouldnt be let in in the first place, and then these suspicions wouldnt arise.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 19 July 2007 12:15:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Too bad about the rule of law, the separation of powers and using jail as punishment for a young doctor on remand (bail) for giving a phone card to his cousin last year before he came to Australia.

He has nothing to do with any terrorism, three of the so-called terrorists have already been released without charge, the SUN in London is saying the bombs in London were not really bombs and only one person was hurt.

If this young man committed anything remotely related to terrorism I wonder what it is called to invade and bomb a nation and murder nearly 1 million people for no reason at all. Not to mention the 4.5 million refugees we have made.
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 19 July 2007 4:13:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Frank “Communicat airily says: "As I understand it the transcript was leaked by his own lawyer - but that is only part of the story."

How can Communicat expect us to believe that allegation or lie? What does he base his understanding on?”

Maybe the admission of Haneef’s Lawyer that it was he who did release the transcript and the photo in the Australian and the ensuing interview.

Oh – quoting Greg Barnes, another vapid one, is not a sensible strategy if the goal is to sway debate.

As you quoted “"So the accusation that Dr Haneef’s lawyers are responsible for The Australian’s front page coup today should be taken with a grain of salt.” –

vinegar, fish and chips with that salt Frank?

Re “Given the state of the polls three months out from an election, experience suggests we ought to look closer at the dirt units set up in at least two Ministerial offices as a source of the leak.” –

No need any more.

Your Next post “Yes I was quite wrong –“ maybe we and Greg Barnes should take all that you write with a “pinch of salt” too

The reason “We are a greater terrorist target” is not “due to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan” but because we are not a country which accepts terrorists.

Any nation which stand against terror or even tries to stay neutral is a terrorist target.
Terrorists do not accept the values which we have grown accustomed to.
Terrorists accept only their own rights and you or my "rights" are simply something to be incinerated with us as we attempt to eat, meet or travel from place to place and peacefully go about our private business.

There is only one way to deal with terrorists and their supporters; that is swiftly and finally, giving them no second chances to plant another bomb or commit murder and mayhem on an unsuspecting public.

I would suggest we should all support the governments attempts to ensure no outrages are perpetrated on Australian soil by any friend or cousin of any terrorist anywhere.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 19 July 2007 12:23:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn Shepherd,
I wonder how it is that you KNOW Haneef has nothing to do with any terrorism. The rest of us don’t.

Those terrorists released don’t happen to be his two second cousins with whom he lived at one time and to whom he gave the sim card which was found at the bomb site do they?

Haneef is still in jail because he hasn’t posted bail, otherwise he would be in immigration detention. Immigration detention is a holding pool for those who are in our country without a visa. They will either be sent home or given a visa. Haneef will be sent home.

Is the Sun (paragon of the tabloid media) really the best source you can think of to back up your argument?

I suppose if I tried to murder you but only ended up hurting someone else then I guess it wouldn’t really be serious would it?

If you don’t understand the difference between war, where both sides are armed and expect to be attacked, and murder, where innocents going about their business are killed as they eat/sleep/travel, then you are the one who is morally bankrupt

Don’t bother trying to point out that innocents died in Iraq, I know this. The HEROIC RESISTANCE FORCES (read Islamo/Fascists) hid behind these innocents whilst attacking the coalition. It happened again at the red mosque last week, where grown men surrounded themselves with women and children in order to defend themselves.

Finally the vast majority of deaths in Iraq can be attributed to Iraqis killing other Iraqis. This is not something we have control over. And for those of you who think we do, just watch what happens if you do get your way and forces are prematurely removed from Iraq. Total civil war will break out, not the minor skirmishes we see at present, but more akin to Rwanda and Somalia.
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 19 July 2007 1:12:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We don't know that Haneef has nothing to do with terrorism. What we do know is that all the arguments Keelty and Ruddock have given so far are pathetic to the point of absurdity. Of course, you can choose to trust Keelty and Ruddock to have stronger evidence, which they choose not to share. And can anyone think of any reason why we wouldn't trust them? They've been so impeccably honest in the past.
Posted by bushbasher, Thursday, 19 July 2007 1:32:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
... to whom he gave the sim card which was found at the bomb site do they?

Just who says Haneef's sim card was found at the bomb site? Even Glen Milne didn't go that far, although he hinted at it.

If Kevin Andrews had used his power to deport Haneef, fair enough, but he used it to keep him locked up. After a court had released him on bail.

This is a misuse of his power, if you can't see that I feel sorry for you the terrorists have won.
Posted by ruawake, Thursday, 19 July 2007 4:01:08 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul I am very tired of the claim that it is only Iraqis killing Iraqis so it doesn't matter. They were not doing it before we invaded the place were they.

The only word we have for any connection to Dr Haneef is the word of the poms. who shoot down innocent workers, raid the homes of innocent students and who have locked up over 1100 "terrorist" only to have to release the majority without charge. Many are only charged with immigration offences.

Britain lived with the IRA for decades and didn't behave as bizarrely as they are now and we have all survived the cold war and nuclear threat havent' we?

If we are going to be serious about terrorists we actually have to stop jumping at the bogeyman.

What bothers me is that the whingers and snivellers are mostly men. Why is that?
Posted by Marilyn Shepherd, Thursday, 19 July 2007 4:47:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge the Australian government is commiting outrages on Australian soil. To me it is not a matter of supporting my government right or wrong.
You seem to be overlooking children in detention,children overboard,Tampa,the incursion into the NT, the IR laws and now the penalties on employers and employees if the former do not disseminate
information on Workplaces and the latter do not read it or request that it be read to them by their employer within 7 days of a change of employment.
Under this piece of legislation all working Australians have the potential to be classified as criminals.
Look around you Col.
Bruce Haigh
Posted by Bruce Haigh, Thursday, 19 July 2007 7:08:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn Shepherd States "they were not doing it before we invaded the place were they.", referring to Iraqis killing their countrymen in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein and his Sunni mates were guilty of Genocide against Kurds, Shia and Marsh Arabs, not to mention an estimated one million dead in the futile war with Iran.

Worth remembering in these emotional arguments.
Posted by palimpsest, Thursday, 19 July 2007 7:28:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Marilyn Shepherd wrote:

"Paul I am very tired of the claim that it is only Iraqis killing Iraqis so it doesn't matter. They were not doing it before we invaded the place were they."

Well yes they were actually Marilyn, chief executioner one S. Hussein. I suppose that if you prefer your murder to be state sanctioned and behind closed doors, then your comment makes sense.

It is off topic but it seems blatantly obvious to me that the invasion has merely lifted the lid off the fact that "Iraq" is not in any sense (and never has been) a NATION.. ie, a group of people bound together by common values, shared heritage etc. There are three ethnoreligious groups (Kurds/Shiite/Sunni) forced to live as one and when the place isn't held together by a megalomaniac dictator.. well you see what happens every night on the news...

Why don't we admit the fact that it cannot work, in the same way that Yugoslavia didn't work, and come up with a way to partition the place before every last person has been obliterated at the hands of the good ol' God-fearing suicide bomber?
Posted by stickman, Thursday, 19 July 2007 7:29:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runawake,
Haneef will be deported just as soon as the courts have finished with him. The only reason he is not on a flight now is because the federal police believe that it is possible he has a case to answer. I am not a Howard fan at all, and I can accept the possibility that this is more than a little political, if you can accept that it’s possible that Haneef really is a terrorist enabler. I just can’t see why the benefit of the doubt should go to a non citizen whose family doesn’t even live here.

Marilyn
You have deliberately misquoted me. I never said that it doesn’t matter that it is Iraqis killing Iraqis. I said we did not control it. Before we “invaded the place” it was Saddam who was doing all the killing. Check out amnesty to see how many of his own citizens he killed.

I don’t think you have any idea how Britain reacted during the IRA years. Just look up internment, shoot to kill, Diplock courts etc.

We survived the cold war because the west was committed enough to fight the spread of international communism. Even the rabid left no longer denies the horrors of Soviet and Asian communism, nor their expansionist intentions. They didn’t go away by themselves that’s for sure.

I would say I am defending the status quo with regards Haneef and it is people like you who don’t like the current situation who are the whiners and snivelers. As for those of us Men you refer to. Mostly we want to keep our families safe and we actually have some experience with bullies and violence. Women like you rely on people with guns and badges to keep you safe and yet you paint the police and army as liars and murderers. I bet if you were ever assaulted or in fear of your safety the first people you would call are our ‘supposedly untrustworthy’ police.

By the way, were 7/7, Madrid train bombings, 9/11, Bali and recent attacks in London/Glasgow shadows?
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 19 July 2007 11:34:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, I was wrong about the source of the leak. And I've acknowledged it. Although let's be clear it was not Haneef's solicitor but his barrister. And the barrister had some pretty pertinent things to say about why he leaked - principally to match the government's leaks.

I also said: “Given the state of the polls three months out from an election, experience suggests we ought to look closer at the dirt units set up in at least two Ministerial offices as a source of the leak.” There's no need for me to resile from asserting that there have been plenty of Ministerial leaks in the last ten years. Why even today, Peter Costello was complaining about John Howard leaking a document detrimental to Costello.

More to the point, you say: "There is only one way to deal with terrorists and their supporters; that is swiftly and finally, giving them no second chances to plant another bomb or commit murder and mayhem on an unsuspecting public."

Who would disagree? But let's make sure that the evidence is right - that we've got the real terrorist and not some convenient innocent who happens to be nearby three months short of an election.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 19 July 2007 11:46:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello? Defenders of Ruddock and the AFP? Are you there? Hello? Is anyone home? Hello?
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 20 July 2007 8:55:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Now we find the the AFP presented "facts" to the court that are not backed up by the interview.

Haneef did not share a house with the two bombers and his sim card had nothing to do with the bombs.

Keelty must resign. This is a disgrace.

Why did the AFP fabricate evidence?
Posted by ruawake, Friday, 20 July 2007 9:50:33 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, after giving me a hard time for believing that the Government might have been responsible for media leaks - for which mistake I apologised - you go on: "I would suggest we should all support the governments attempts to ensure no outrages are perpetrated on Australian soil by any friend or cousin of any terrorist anywhere."

Today we learn that some of the details of a terrorism charge against Haneef presented in court by the prosecution may have been incorrect.

Did the Federal police lie to the court when they said that the SIM card belonging to Haneef was found in the Jeep that smashed into Glasgow Airport? It now appears as if the card was found elsewhere with a man charged only with withholding information.

If the latest report is verified officially, says The Age, it would dissolve Haneef's link to the Glasgow attack and the charge of 'recklessly' supporting a terrorist organisation would have little substance. It seems there are 'outrages' and 'outrages' Col.

Where do you stand now Col? A bit rouge in the face?
Posted by FrankGol, Friday, 20 July 2007 10:52:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TERRORISM MENTIONED - KEEP HIM LOCKED UP

I don't know what the fuss is about fellows.

The guy is brown.

He has no family here in Australia.

The Government has presented no skerrick of substantiale evidence against him in Court to date.

The UK is not interested in extraditing him because the case against him is so weak.

The UK has already released suspects much closer to the action for lack of evidence and legal argument.

But he IS foreign and he IS brown AND Terrorism has been mentioned so he is INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.

We can turn the law upside down against those least able to defend themselves against a hell bent Federal Government.

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 20 July 2007 11:13:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee, it's so quiet.

runner, no comment from you? Leigh, you think believing that cops should tell the truth is a "queer idea"? dovif1, still happy with jailing people if Keelty says we should? Col Rouge, you think the treatment of Haneef is a "fair price"? mickijo, still happy with the "attention" Haneef has received? Communicat, you're not in a mood to "complain"? Paul L, you're still happy with the treatment of this "non citizen"? sharkfin, anybody else you think should be deported.

Not a word from any of you?
Posted by bushbasher, Friday, 20 July 2007 2:51:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The American founding father James Madison said (23/Feb/1799): "The fetters imposed on liberty at home have ever been forged out of the weapons provided for defense against real, pretended or imaginary dangers from abroad."

How prescient were those words, more than 200 years ago?

What worries me are comments from Philip Ruddock that he wants to extend the time period that these laws apply. A continual state of fear and fore-boding is a ripe environment leading up to elections!!
Posted by probono, Friday, 20 July 2007 3:37:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
well Bush Basher, seems us fair go lefty's (if you are a lefty:) ) had a point or two all along. Wonder what the chattering classes will come up with now,huh.
Posted by Lang Mack, Friday, 20 July 2007 3:38:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,
Are all those people who have ideas that don’t echo your own fascists or just plain thick? I’ll put my educational credentials up against yours any time you like. Although whatever education you do have hasn’t seemed to help you express yourself with any clarity or without resort to insult.

My support of the Federal Police seems to have perhaps been a little too fulsome. I note that many of those who wrote in defence of Haneefs legal team also have a little egg on their faces.

I do not condone the AFP making things up, if in fact that is what has happened, and would support their condemnation on this issue. I will say again that I am not a supporter of the liberal party on most issues, not that it should be relevant. However, I believe that on the whole the Federal Police are working for the safety of Australians and not for the reelection of the Howard Gov’t, as some of you suggest.

I think that canceling his visa may have been a bit premature. My faith was never in Ruddock or Andrews but in the hardworking and courageous people of the AFP and I sincerely believed that they must have had some extra evidence that was not made public. Whilst this is a setback for the AFP, I don’t think it is time to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”

As for Langmack, I think that the soft lefts infiltration of academia, arts and the so called helping professions means that it is you who are part of the chattering classes
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 20 July 2007 4:46:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul.L That was a long chat, mostly with the letter 'I' in it.
Posted by Lang Mack, Friday, 20 July 2007 5:53:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree with Paul L. that the AFP, including Keelty, should not be crucified for carrying out a duty under intense political pressure from Ruddock and Howard.

Howard, Uncle Phil and Formal Kev may soon have the knives out for Keelty as the scapegoat. Keelty has stood up to the Government in the past when he rightly identified Iraq as fuel on the terrorist fire http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/03/16/1079199194438.html

Keelty's made the AFP an effective counterterrorist intelligence and law enforcement body overseas particularly following the Bali I Bombings and (as far as I can see) here. If the AFP has been coerced into exaggerating the slim case against Haneef then the political lines of control should be obvious.

With the Federal Government behind in the polls the Government appears to be milking any matter, however serious, to gain votes. The AFP in terrorism matters is under the close supervision of the broader Federal Government.

Why is the Government hanging on to Haneef?

If the Government was serious in assisting the UK to resolve a UK terrorism matter it would facilitate the extradition of a suspect to the UK. Instead our Government has kept him here for increasingly apparent political reasons. A procession of UK Police and other security officials will be taking the LONG flight to Australia in August to handle what appears to be a UK matter.

Even if the scare campaign is fooling some voters http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22104675-601,00.html the Government should give us a hint about its coveted but "key" secret evidence or stop scaring voters.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 20 July 2007 6:43:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gee, Paul L. Please do wave your academic qualifications around like a penis. See if I'm impressed.

Do I regard people who disagree with me as fascist or thick? No, not normally. But, after Hicks and Habib, anyone who then treated Ruddock as an honest man of integrity, yes they must be one or the other. The Haneef business smelled from the very beginning.

And no, I'm not left. I'm just left of the fear-mongering hysteria which, for a while, took over this country.

As for those who want to defend Keelty and the AFP, forget it. This is the same AFP who knew for days about the SIM card error and said nothing? The same AFP who renigged on a deal with Lee Rush, ensuring his son ended up in Bali on death row? Whatever integrity Keelty once had, he long ago sold it for job security. He's a truly disgusting man.
Posted by bushbasher, Saturday, 21 July 2007 1:19:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The tinfoil hat brigade is out in full force on this article. No mention by the media of the other arrests made around the same time as Haneef. Based on my own experience with the forensics used to gather information regarding terrorist suspects it appears that the evidence gathering mechanisms for this case may be flawed, and so may be the legislation, but to suggest it is a political fear campaign is unbelievable. By far the biggest incident of fear mongering so far has been by Andrew Bartlett, who has implied to all muslim residents that the federal executive misrepresented the advice of the AFP when Haneefs visa was cancelled (subject to appeal).
Posted by Krustyburger, Saturday, 21 July 2007 3:13:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
First off I must apologise as I got you and Bushbred confused. Bushbred has waived his educational credentials around at the same time as making disparaging remarks about others intelligence. You have merely disparaged my and others intelligence. Looking at your comment history I can see that you don’t seem to support much. You seem to be content merely to criticise. I wonder if you would put your case as to what should be done with regards to Islamic Terrorism.

I further note that you believe that the left is not involved in ‘fear mongering’. It is clear that both sides of the political spectrum exaggerate about adverse consequences (what some call fear mongering) to justify their positions. To pretend that one side is guiltier is self serving.

As for Keelty and the AFP, it was public servant Peter White who prepared the inaccurate minute for Andrews.

Andrews still maintains that he had access to evidence not put before the magistrate when deciding Haneefs’ visa cancellation. Maybe he has nothing, in which case Haneef will be released, his visa reinstated and maybe he’ll get some monetary compensation. Certainly someone’s head, probably White’s, will roll. This demonstrates that our system is healthy and we are not in danger of becoming a fascist state
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 21 July 2007 8:55:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Krustyburger, I'm not claiming Ruddock made Haneef up, and I'm not criticising anyone for the initial suspicion of or detaining of Haneef. But that's all there is to it? For years, Howard and his henchmen have been trampling on civil rights, demonising whoever is convenient to demonise, running the most cynical fear campaigns.

And look at what Haneef was charged with: giving his cousin a SIM card a year ago. That constitutes reckless support of terrorism? Terrorists in Britain are too poor to buy their own SIM cards? How can anyone not be troubled by this? How can anyway not suspect that the charge was political, was an act of desperation?

Perhaps Haneef will be found to have actively assisted in terrorism. Perhaps there really is other, substantial, evidence we haven't seen. But I see no evidence of this, and there are bloody good reasons for not trusting Keelty or Ruddock.

Paul L, apology accepted re the confusion with bushbred.

Your defence of AFP is tepid, for reasons adequately covered in my previous post.

Your claiming that the publication of these errors amounts to a vindication of our system, has some merit, but also borders on question-begging. The press (not Labor!) have indeed done an excellent job on this. In particular, this can be contrasted with the press's (initially) appalling job regarding Hicks and Habib.

But, if and when Haneef is released, are you going to use that as an argument that our legal system is working? If so, you cannot then logically argue that a successful terrorist prosecution shows the legal system is working. And, whatever happens to Haneef, that is not in itself an argument on the moral or social or security merits of the laws.

I don't have time to go into my own opinions in this post. Yes, I don't agree with much. For what it's worth I think Islam, along with all religion, is absurd, and I think fundamentalist religion, of all stripes, is a genuine threat. But that is no excuse for paranoia, or the cynical capitalisation on that paranoia by base politicians.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 22 July 2007 12:00:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let the alleged terrorist supporter go:

They should have let him leave the country when he wanted to, of course. Why should the government bother dealing with people from overseas who are suspected of terrorist leaning, or sympathies?

And why should the government put anyone in immigration detention? I say that no-one should be in immigration detention at all, let them all lose.

It is clear from all the arguments made in the letters to the editor, and by all the bar associations, and law societies, that everyone is innocent, heck, even the bloke who shot the Queensland policeman to death was innocent, after all, what were two thuggish police officers doing trying to speak with someone so late at night? I mean, just because he robbed a pub at gun point and killed a police officer didn't make him a criminal did it?

He family should get compensation because he shot himself whilst in police custody (the police had surrounded the house, so he was effectively in custody...)

Shame on the authorities for trying to prevent terrorism and criminal activities, shame, shame, shame.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 22 July 2007 12:23:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher, As regards Howard, Ruddock et al, I tend to agree. I too believe anyone capitalising upon peoples’ legitimate fear of Islamic terrorism is base and does not deserve to hold office. This should not be a partisan debate, which I think was, in part, what Rudd was trying to achieve in supporting the gov’t on this issue.

As for the AFP, if Keelty has done something unethical in this regard, he will deserve to be punished. The system works. Those who lie or dissemble are caught out and will be punished. The AFP don’t appear to have lied at any stage here. They presented the evidence they collected, not the analysis. That was the prosecution and gov’t staffers.

Whether people lied or not is also not an argument for or against the merits of the security laws. It may, however mean that we have the wrong people administering them. I am all for voting Howard and the liberals out.

You have heard all the Sheik Hillali quotes. How are we to believe that there aren’t many people in his community who take him seriously. Even worse, how can we believe that the people who do adhere to his views aren’t harbouring/enabling others who really intend to do us as much harm as is possible. It feel it is only a matter of time until a significant act of terrorism occurs on Australian soil. I really hope that I am wrong, but in the meantime I think we should do what is in our power to try and prevent it. You might call it the thin edge of the wedge but surely there is room for the small curtailment of individual rights if it is effective in keeping us safe
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 22 July 2007 2:11:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hamlet, suspicion equals guilt? Thanks for presenting the thick-and-fascist case so clearly.

Paul L, to call the terrorism laws a "small curtailment of individual rights" is laughable. I don't regard the possibility of being jailed for 15 years for giving a relative a SIM card a small curtailment. I don't regard the possibility of secret trials with secret evidence a small curtailment.

You claim that "those who lie or dissemble are caught out and will be punished". What on Earth is your evidence for that? Who has suffered politically or professionally for the torture of Habib?

Your discussion of Hilali shows the danger of jumping at shadows. Hilali is a nasty bit of work. (So is Pell, while we're at it). But you are really advocating though crimes, and you are advocating incredible, unprecedented powers to prosecute these thought crimes. Whatever its success, it is poisonously draconian in intent.
Posted by bushbasher, Sunday, 22 July 2007 4:26:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bushbasher,
One - No one has gone to jail for 15yrs for handing over a sim card and its only an opinion as to whether anyone ever will . When you say . “I don't regard the possibility of being jailed for 15 years for giving a relative a SIM card a small curtailment” you leave out the fact that the relative he gave it to was one of two relatives being held on suspicion of terrorism.

Two –The importance of the Sim card is that it gave Sabeel Ahmed the possibility of making calls which were not directly attributable to him. Of course he could have bought his own sim card but it would have had his name on it. Surely if the intent was to make it easier to avoid potential eavesdropping or detection, that would be a serious issue since it implies some knowledge on Haneefs behalf of wrongdoing. But maybe he just didn’t want to waste credit. Isn’t that something a jury could decide?

Three – Could you please give me a link to the secret trials part of the anti terror laws I couldn’t find it.

Four – Did we torture Mamdouh Habib? I only ask because I thought the Egyptians did that. After he was arrested in Pakistan.

Five - Please explain how is it I’m advocating the introduction of thought crime? I don’t believe that I have suggested that we should lock up everyone who doesn’t think the right way. Maybe you could highlight where I said that.

Six – I also find Pell unpleasant, but I haven’t seen him remark yet that the deaths of 3000 innocent people in NYC was GODS WORK. Hilali justifies suicide bombings and he was for a long time the head of the largest mosque in Australia. How is it jumping at shadows to point that out? Hillali didn’t really mean what he said?
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 22 July 2007 10:24:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L,

1. True, but clearly one of the chilling aspects of the early Haneef days was the realisation that the law was so draconian, so broad, that 15 years was a genuine possibility. And your follow-up comment makes it seem like you wouldn't necessarily mind. The fact that the Sim card ended with (an acquaintance of!) terrorists reasonably suggests suspicion but is not evidence of moral culpability (unless you're a Hamlet-like cretin). Nonetheless it is now arguably a crime.

2. Using the Sim card of a relative in order to stay anonymous? Give me a break. And, I'm pretty sure that in England you can simply go into a shop without ID and buy a Sim card.

3. I don't think this is in any way under question, but I don't have time to look for detailed legal links now. See Liz Porter's article "This is not a bad spy novel" in this Sunday's Age (available online).

4. The Egyptians tortured Habib because the Americans in Pakistan sent him there, with the clear intention that he be tortured. This was with the knowledge of ASIO and Foreign Affairs. And if Ruddock and Howard and Downer didn't know, it was only because of the we-don't-want-to-know system which worked so well for them with the AWB sleaze.

The whole point of extraordinary rendition is to permit the kind of morally repugnant deniability in which you're now indulging.

Compare the subsequent coverage of and treatment of Habib with that of the Canadian Maher Arar.

5. If you are not advocating thought crimes then what is the point of your reference to Hilali? Do you think Hilali's justification of suicide bombers should be a crime?

6. No, George Pell didn't call 9/11 God's work, though Jerry Falwell did.

Honestly, if I had to choose between having a Pell or a Hilali, I'd choke down my vomit and choose Pell. But, if you're going to discuss religious wickedness, I'd be curious to know which has killed more: Islamic terrorists; or the Catholic lying about and condemnation of condoms?
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 23 July 2007 12:44:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This case is going from bad to worse. Yesterday the Australian Federal Police said that Haneef was not being investigated for planning to blow up Q1. Today the AFP admitted they hand wrote the names of UK terrorist suspects in Haneef's diary. The AFP admitted that they have tampered with evidence.

This case has destroyed the integrity of the AFP and will make The Age readers question the impartiality and fairness of the federal government and its instruments.
Posted by billie, Monday, 23 July 2007 11:10:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. I definitely would care if Haneef was innocent. I don’t want innocent people in jail. You are making the assumption that a jury would convict him even if they thought his motive was innocent. He would only go to jail if the jury thought that he was intending to materially support terrorism. If he was intending to support terrorism, then I would expect that he be sent to jail.

2. Police and security can’t monitor every family member of those suspected of terrorism. Having a phone that isn’t yours might deflect suspicion from the calls you make. It doesn’t even matter if it can’t. If Haneef thought he was helping the others shield their communications he would have committed a crime

3. It is secret hearings you are referring to. Where evidence that is sensitive to national security can be kept secret. Like how ASIO goes about monitoring suspects etc

4. I don’t support torture.. Is there evidence that ASIO and Foreign affairs knew that he was going to be sent to Egypt. I know he said they did.

5. Our racial vilification laws aren’ t based upon thought crime. Neither is conspiracy or slander. They all depend upon what is said. It seems to me that Hillali is guilty of racial/religious vilification.

6. What Falwell said was America deserved it because they don’t pay enough attention to god. Hillali said the bombers were carrying out gods work, meaning that the suicide bombers were saintly and if you wanted to do gods work you’d should do it too.

7. I think that the catholic churches refusal to allow followers to wear condoms constitutes a genocide against the peoples of Africa and Asia. It’s disgraceful, up there with the inquisition. The difference between the church and Islamic terrorists is intent. Iranian children are taught that it is gods work to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. With nuclear weapons if possible. If Islamic Terrorists get hold of a nuclear or biological weapon they will place it where it will kill the most number of innocent people
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 23 July 2007 9:24:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
1. Your last sentence says it all. You totally missed the point.
2. Good God, that's a weak argument.
3. You asked and I told you. That you don't consider it a concern is sad.
4. Tons of circumstantial evidence. Just search.
5. You're obfuscating by changing the topic.
6. Did you use a microscope to split that hair?
7. We basically agree, but effect matters at least as much as intent.

It seems to me, even on your own terms your position is contradictory. You seem to have no faith in the integrity of the current government (who could?), nor the government which might replace them (who could?). Though you're reluctant to state it, your failure to defend the AFP (who could?) suggests similarly non-existent faith. BUT the laws you are defending require an incredible faith in the enacters and enforcers of those laws. Even on your own terms, I don't know how the Hell you can believe what you believe.

Paul L, I've had enough. I've patiently answered your questions as you cherry-picked from posts, and as you've largely failed to answer mine. I won't continue on this thread.
Posted by bushbasher, Monday, 23 July 2007 9:57:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've tried to answer all of the points you raised if you can think of one that I have avoided let me know. I replied to your arguments point by point. This, by the way, is far more than most of my opponents do. Cherry picking?

So 1 .I really don’t see where I’ve missed the point
2. I don’t think so. Are you saying that someone who thinks they are helping enable terrorists has not committed a crime?
3. You said the laws sanctioned secret courts, that’s a serious inaccuracy. There is a very big difference between giving evidence in secret and the whole case being secret. That’s not splitting hairs.
4. You have been arguing the whole way along that circumstantial evidence isn’t enough
5. The topic was Hillali and whether he was doing anything wrong. You said I must be advocating thought crime to bring up Hillali. I demurred.
6. I don’t think it hair splitting, that’s your opinion
7. Yes

Finally I have faith that a Rudd led gov’t would be a proper defender of the peoples rights while also keeping us as safe as they are able. If it becomes apparent that the AFP have acted improperly then they should fire Keelty. At the moment it seems to me, most of the mess has been made by the gov’t trying to make up ground before the next election. The laws I am defending require faith in the COURTS, who decide matters of evidence, and JURIES who decide matters of fact. I put my thoughts out there partly to test whether I am right or not. I listen to those who disagree me, especially if they have a good argument, because I think debate is healthy.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 4:37:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
FrankGol “Today we learn that some of the details of a terrorism charge against Haneef presented in court by the prosecution may have been incorrect.”

And your point?

“It now appears as if the card was found elsewhere with a man charged only with withholding information.” – what information

You can go around in circles all you want Frank but in the end we have a federal police employed to make our society safe from terrorists and not a haven safe for terrorists. When it is one of your family members on the receiving end of a train or restaurant bomb you might think differently, until that time, I guess you will prance along on your high moral crusade with the other legions of the limp-wrist.

Bushbasher “Col Rouge, you think the treatment of Haneef is a "fair price"?”

The “price” he is paying is a lot less than that paid by the Australian lady in the London tube who lost both her legs or the others who lost their lives.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 4:55:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When one of our relatives is on the receiving end of a terrorist bomb we might feel differently... for example, we might become _more_ determined to protect the rights and freedoms which differentiate our society from the savage one the terrorists dream of.

It's not wise to assume anything about the background of people you're talking to online.
Posted by Kyle Aaron, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 7:00:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge says: "... federal police[are] employed to make our society safe from terrorists and not a haven safe for terrorists." I agree.

That's why I want them to be skilful - and totally respectful of the law and due process.

If they are going to produce a 'result' merely because their political masters demand it in an election year, none of us is safe. And we all stand to lose when they are captive of their masters' political agendas.
Posted by FrankGol, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 8:38:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
LIBERALS CLASH WITH NATIONALS OVER HANEEF

It appears that a key member of the Government is admitting Dr Haneef's incarceration is drifting further from a crime that occurred in Britain and more towards pre-electoral desperation:

The Herald Sun today http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22123510-662,00.html reported

"THE legal team for Dr Mohamed Haneef continued its battle to free the accused terror suspect as the Government yesterday admitted it cancelled his visa purely to keep him in the country.

[NATIONAL PARTY'S] Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile said that [LIBERAL PARTY] Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa immediately after he was granted bail in a Brisbane Magistrates' Court last week was "to ensure the individual stayed in Australia".

The Government's admission was another boost for Dr Haneef's team, which has been outspoken of the Australian Federal Police and the Government's handling of the case.

Last week, Mr Andrews revoked Dr Haneef's visa, despite his bail conditions including him surrendering his passport.

Mr Vaile's admission caught Mr Andrews -- who spent most of last week justifying his decision on character and national security -- by surprise, his office referring calls on the matter back to Mr Vaile".

Rapid Government denials are expected. The Government now appears under too much pressure to deny things convincingly - however much it exposes the AFP to political campaigning.

The Government may well be saving up its touted secret evidence for hearings in August - closer to the election - great timing - more strategic Government leaks before that?

Pete
Posted by plantagenet, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 10:42:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How ironic, roughly 20 years ago Terry Gilliam released his first film as a director, the film was called "Brazil".

I thought then it was an exceptionally accurate representation of the past and present in some parts of the world.

Now regretably, Brazil is here in this country and looks like will be our future at least for a while.

How sad...
Posted by stan_nesta, Tuesday, 24 July 2007 11:59:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have a look at "The Trials of Dr Haneef" ABC Four Corners, to see that Haneef's body language shows that he is concealing truth.
Then listen carefully to his final quote from the Koran of "Truth will come out. And falsehood shall vanish. And falsehood is ever to be banished."
Everyone presumes that Haneef meant the "falsehoods" of his charges, whereas it is also a very sly and literal reference of the triumph of Islam over Infidels.
Our Liberalism is being used against us.
Posted by JulesAU48, Monday, 12 November 2007 11:50:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy