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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All
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Come to think of it John, I too have three or four old SIM cards in superceded mobile phone models, none of which have credit on them but who knows if I dispose of them without careful thought I too might find myself in breach of these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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 12
  9. 13
  10. 14
  11. All

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