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.

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 -

Correction: ...Rudd to discover his latent courage.
BH

"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"

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.

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.