The law basing the charge on a "question of character" is substandard in a western democracy. In terms of balancing security and human rights, the Government must tidy up its act in wording these new laws. Some specific points need to spell out exactly what the problem is and how to resolve them. Otherwise in a western democracy, we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty.

Not withstanding, the whole section of the law does not suit the interests of Australians and should be dropped before another innocent person is persecuted.

The Howard government and the Bush government are creating an agenda of fear, instability and political repression in order to rule. This is their "new world order" or dictate. Both have publicly indicated longterm ongoing colonial type looting wars. Bush's "one war following another", and Howard's "long term wars in the Pacific." Saying this and doing this of course are two different things. Here they both have to literally bludgeon any critical thinking and insights. They require a cover to overcome widespread opposition in introducing wideranging dictatorial methods. To do this effectively they need boogeymen and an appropriate ideology. People do not see the agenda that is under way. The politicians will use the military to grab aboriginal lands and use the aboriginals as a source of very cheap labour. Behind the government stand the large mining interests. Again, the military will be used against workers to enforce deeper forms of exploitation entailed in the new industrial laws. Then there is the widespread looting of publicly owned resources, national assets and treasures deviously termed "privatisation." As well, there is the criminal practise of a war being carried out to undermine the publicly owned hospital and medicare system. Criminal in any sense of the word!This requires ongoing political and military repression and attacks on the most basic democratic rights. Hicks or Haneef have broken no laws but they are useful to Howards agenda. And Rudd keeps his mouth shut about the whole process under way.

WHAT SECRET EVIDENCE? - JOHNNIE KNOWS NOTHING

With Haneef being released I'm peeved that the touted SECRET EVIDENCE has not been revealed. If there was evidence sufficient for Formal Kev to remove Dr Haneef's visa and lockup Dr Haneef then it would be nice if Formal Kev, Keystone Keelty or maybe The Bugg told us.

Meanwhile Little Johnnie is blaming Keelty and The Bugg for the stuff up; Says the Australian http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22144151-601,00.html:

"Speaking from Bali this afternoon, Prime Minister John Howard distanced his government from the dramatic collapse today of the terrorism case against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.

Mr Howard said it was up to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty and federal Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg, QC, to explain what had happened."

Naturally Ruddock knew nothing. The fact that Ruddock's Department (AGs) includes a Counter-Terrorism Strategic Policy Unit http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Organisational_StructureNational_Security_and_Criminal_JusticeSecurity_and_Critical_InfrastructureCounter_Terrorism_Strategy_Policy means nothing. It was inter alia established to keep an eye on court caases involving terrorism.

The fact that little Johnnie's Department PM&C has a National Security Division http://www.pmc.gov.au/about_pmc/divisions/national-security/index.cfm with a brief including "Counter Terrorism and Law Enforcement" means that Johnnie knew nothing.

Therefore Keelty and Bugg are the designated scapegoats for this (attempted) electoral vote fixer.

Pete

Lets see if we can keep it simple.

1. Attacks in Britain cause the police to ask Australia for support. A support that must be given.
2. The Dr is accused of being reckless. (this would ordinarily make a great australian anyway)
The question is was he reckless stupidly with ignorance or not ?
If it was with stupidity then he will be free and should be asked to stay.(Do we remember why menzies was called pig iron bob or not)
Before we blame any government for trying to save us from a possibility should we(including the good doctor) not also blame his cousins first and foremost.
FOR MU & Leigh
The term wog was a racial expression used at least by the early twenties to describe english immigrants.
Racism is not inherent ,it is over advertised. There is plenty of cross discrimination between immigrants without blaming non immigrants.
Sadly we are so politically correct that even comedy isnt funny anymore. Our press laps this stuff up unfortunately as the Dr should not have his nationality or immigration even mentioned. It is a simple question of the possible criminality of a man who had a one way ticket !
Simple isnt it.

It's quite clear that the Magistrate who had allowed Dr Haneef bail, got it right. Mr Andrews, is looking quite a fool for having tried to defend the indefencible. When a Minister such as Mr Andrews tells us to be trusting, we now know that we must be quite skeptical.

Leigh,

Many of us are waiting for your response to FrankGol, posted Friday, 27 July 2007 1:17:15 PM

Why the delay?