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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.