Yes I was quite wrong - it is now quite clear that Haneef's barrister (not his solicitor) has admitted he leaked the transcript. The solicitor protested his innocence this morning but it looks like his colleague had pulled the rug from under him. So I eat humble pie.

Should I apologise to the Federal Police and the two Ministers? I should, and do, in this instance. But I think Greg Barns' comments that I quoted earlier are still pertinent. Leaks from law enforcement and security agencies have been common and government ministers have also been known cynically to leak material in such cases for political ends.

And Barns' remains: Government Ministers and the PM have adopted a jack-boot approach to Dr Haneef and to the judicial process; and they do this for political ends, not for the sake of national interest.

I think this whole fiasco demonstrates the importance of maintaining open processes and public accountability. The separation of powers has never been more important.

Good on the barrister. This is a political showtrial, making political counter-tactics perfectly appropriate.

Bushbasher,FrankGol and ruawake sum up my thoughts on this issue. Keelty should not be heading up the AFP which is now thoroughly politicised. It has no parliamentary oversight and to all intents and purposes answers to PM&C (Howard). It will take years to overcome the present culture and that is not likely to happen under Rudd.
A major problem is the nature of the relationship the AFP has developed with their Indonesian conterparts and the TNI. The Indonesian framework all too often applies and when the stakes have been high the TNI have played them for fools; they are past masters at it having dealt closely with the Australian military for 30 years or so.
Bruce Haigh

“We are a greater terrorist target due to our involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan”
True, but over simplistic.

This is one reason we are a terrorist target, another reason is because of the United -Nations and our involvement in intervention in conflicts around the world. The only reason we are not at war with Indonesia at this time is because we give them billions in aid and our politicians did a deal with their politicians to call off the Indonesian army before they ever sent the Australian troops in to East Timor. A huge fight broke out over the decision in the Indonesian parliament and was shown on the news at the time.

We ‘ve just been lucky so far that the armed groups in the Solomons and Serbia , Rwanda etc. have been fairly impotent at taking on the military might of the West.

The United nations is a toothless tiger when it is not backed up by the Western military.

A QUESTION:- If there was a nation backed up by allies who were every bit as powerful as the West or even more so,who decided to do some ethnic cleansing like they did in Serbia would the united nations and the West risk their hostility by going in to stop the slaughter knowing that the superior military might of this nation would then be directed at them? This is what has happened with The Arabs, the West is being targeted for their support of Israel .
The Arabs HAVE been able to direct their hostility at the West in this case due to unlimited financial support given to them by a Saudi Prince (Bin Laden) and also because they have many recruits already living in the West.

Glen Milne in the Australian put it this way.

“So, Haneef is a known associate of two men who allegedly tried to blow up central London and drove a car loaded with petrol bombs into Glasgow airport. Not only that, he's connected to them via the mechanism used to try to detonate the bombs. On what reading of these facts can you argue against laws designed to at least pick Haneef up and subject him to a sustained period of questioning?”

Those of you who are rabbitting on about being held responsible for second cousins misdeeds or for giving away phone credit are missing the point.

I don’t know if Haneef was actually involved in supporting the attacks, neither do any of you. The minister has admitted that important evidence that was not put before the court was available to him when he made the decision to rescind the visa of Haneef.

It is easy to imagine many situations where evidence that was not of a standard required in criminal proceedings (ie beyond reasonable doubt) would not be put before a court. The most obvious scenario concerns national security, especially the protection of sources during an ongoing investigation.

Why should we take a risk on a person who’s not a citizen and who’s family doesn’t live here

Any suspected enemy plot against the security of the nation by members of our self proclaimed enemies, The Muslims, is a matter for the Government who are responsible for the security of the nation in time of war; (and we ARE are at war, something the civil libertarians cant seem to grasp).

Personally I think we are being extremely tolerant in letting any one from muslim countries actually stay here when we are at war with their people. It would make more sense if we protected ourselves from terrorists by expelling all of the robe wearing muslims for a start and locking down our borders, than fighting some unwinnable war in a foreign country. Why should our soldiers who are our sons and daughters die in an overseas war solely because we will not lock down our borders. Their are civil liberties and then their is common sense.

Deport Dr. Mohammed Haneef, people from enemy countries shouldnt be let in in the first place, and then these suspicions wouldnt arise.