Well Ruawake, err no you are not.
Running for cover are we, oh well.
What did the AFP do ? Just gave the info from the poms to the
procecutors and left it to them. It appears to be the normal procedure.
So what has it got to do with Howard ?

It wasn't until the charges were dropped that the pollies came into the picture.
Until we know what was behind all that then it is pointles trying to
blame anybody. You are just doing what I said, looking for any
excuse to have a go.
Don't worry about facts, they just get in the way of a good rant.

It is not about the doctor is it ?
No its all about using the doctor to belt the government over the
head. The doctor may well be completely innocent but the people
who are taking advantage of him are not so innocent.

"It wasn't until the charges were dropped that the pollies came into the picture."

Sorry Bazz, It was when 3 hours after a judge granted bail that the Liberal pollies became involved.

Kevin Andrews is a (insert preferred accusation) I have secret evidence that I can't tell you.

Not good enough. Everyone is accountable.

To Ozbib PART I

"It is a bad argument, for the same reasons that arguing for a war purely on the basis that the war is for a just cause is invalid. To be just, wars have to be winnable, there must be no better, less harmful way of achieving the end, and the means has to be proportionate to the end, which means roughly that more harm is prevented by the war than is caused by it. And they must be conducted in a way that minimises the harm caused. Actions that kill and are not thus justified are war crimes. The Iraq war fails on most of these counts."

How is it a bad argument? You haven't provided any argument for this. You say that a war must be "winnable" and not simply for a "just cause", well this doesn't even make sense. On this logic you would have said that the war against the Japanese Imperialists and the Nazi Imperialists would have been unjust if it was seemingly unwinnable; not just simply because it is against evil. No, apparently it has to also be winnable.

Well, frankly, this sounds more like the accounts department than anything else.

To Ozbib PART II,

"To justify an intrusion on liberties, you need more than a proof that life is more important than liberty."
Again, pathetic. The very reason people argue against the Wars in Iraq and Afganhistan is because they wish to preserve the life that is there, apparently no matter what state they live in (such as slavery, ethic abuse, genocide even). Those who wanted to go into Iraq and Afganistan are of the belief that "liberty is more important than life" (the reverse of what you said), as it is better to be dead than half dead. If we are not wiling to fight for freedoms then we are nothing. Only cowards and the racist would say that anyone should be left to live under brutal dictators and with constant ethnic violence, or at least constant discrimination from whatever tribe is on top at the time.

Oh yes, and I like this "there should be compensation for innocent victims". Imagine justy how broke and therefore weak the ALlies would have been if they had to pay compensation to every innocent German or Japanese killed during wars that THEY started and for no sane reason (as has been proven since with both Germany and Japan doing things the way the U.S. asked them to do they are now as wealthy and good nations as pre-war natives of those nations could have imagined). I wonder what the middle east would be like if they similarly just allowed the U.S to do their job, rather than stifling it just because they are white people. They seem to prefer their own kind even if they are mass murderers.

Funny that, as your name suggest, you act as a "dribble" nullifier, that you yoiurself become the dribble. Or perhaps you always were the dribble. A bit of externalize and abject your problems onto others?

Ozzie,

Apologies for the delay. I don’t get much time to look at OLO.

Part 1.

Like most of the civil libertarians I have encountered, I accept that the police need exceptional powers to deal with the threats of terrorist attack. But, like most of them, I think that the definition of ‘terrorist act’ in both Federal and State legislation is defective, leaving the freedom of many innocent people up to the arbitrary decision of the Federal Attorney General. If one of our fellow bloggers, for instance, were to belong to an organisation which supports the bombing of Dresden in the Second World War, for instance, he/she would be infringing the Criminal Code Act. The response of Philip Ruddock to such examples is that he would not permit a case on that kind to continue. We should not have to rely on the decency of a politician to avoid jail in such a case.

I agree with Terry O’Gorman’s comment: ‘While we support greater powers for the investigation of terrorist incidents, we've been warning for a long time that there are not enough checks and balances to protect against miscarriages of justice’

Yes, on the evidence presented so far, I think that the police should have investigated Dr. Haneef’s possible connection with the failed Glasgow bombing. On each of the applications for a warrant to detain him, they should have used the Queensland or Federal laws that require the Queensland Public Interest Monitor to be present when the application is heard. The NSW Terrorism (Police Powers) Act has a requirement that at all hearings after the first, the detainee or his/her lawyer should be present at the hearing. That should have been done. (Lawyers can be vetted for this kind of purpose, and given or denied a security clearance.)

Ozzie Part 2.

The AFP should have obtained advice about the material which they found suspicious, rather than assuming that their own judgement was sufficient. And they and the DPP’s representative should have read the relevant section of the Criminal Code before they laid charges.

Once a court decided that there was no danger to anyone in Haneef’s being released on bail, he should have been allowed to go free—provided he met the conditions the court laid down.

On comments about Howard hating.

The supposition that opponents of what the Federal Government is doing are based on hatred of Howard is remarkably short of evidence. In the hands of the commentariat, it appears to be an attempt to discourage people from looking at the arguments. On OLO, I’d have thought is pointless.

In any case, the civil liberties organisations spend a good deal of their time seeking changes to state government laws made by ALP governments as well as the federal one. Their members and their committees to my knowledge include members of the Liberal Parry, and some serving and past Liberal MPs. There is a wide range of political opinion, apart from the shared concern for rights and liberties: old fashioned conservatives with a belief in the organic nature of society, the interconnectedness of institutions and the danger of making changes without learning from history and looking at the consequences, moderate right wing liberals, and moderate left wing social democrat views predominate. Incidentally, the majority are not lawyers.

Davsab

The sedition laws are a different topic, which would require a thread of its own. If you have time, you might like to look at the summary of the report of the Australian Law Reform Commission on those laws. It is available on their website.

Benjamin

I don’t have space to deal with you thoughtful comments tonight; and OLO permits only two posts in a 24-hour period. I expect that BoazDavid will be after you, since you attack what has been part of Christian morality for a dozen centuries.