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]

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

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).

As I understand it the transcript was leaked by his own lawyer - but that is only part of the story.

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.

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.