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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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?