punter57,
Mate, you have chosen one of the draconian laws, your choice terrorism, certainly I can explain you will know that apart from the rules 5 posts in 24 hours also a limit of 2 posts per subject, unlike other drongo's here. Plus I have a life. Dr. Haneef is a prime example of Howard's way of ruling by fear.

This exercise has shown us how any one of us can be plucked out of obscurity held without charge treated like a terrorist then all charges dropped, some of us may not be so lucky if held, this is a violation of international human rights. This has been an exercise in showing those of us who oppose this draconian law that we could well be next.

Mind you, I don't expect anything to change under Rudd, what people see in him I don't know, you asked mate, I have told.

Davsab, one thing you must say about Leigh: he's consistent.

Consistently dismisses any opinion that he disagrees with as 'nonsense' and never engages in evidence-based debate on the issues. He's a squib.

Consistently insults people he disagrees with by use of cheap labels: 'left wing drongos' and 'screeching commentators'. He dishes it out but can't take it.

Consistently refuses to accept a lawful decision he finds disagreeable: 'Haneef may have been found not guilty. But equally, he may have been found guilty.' He is pig-headed.

Consistently supports his Government right or wrong: 'they are merely going about their legal business'. He is blind to the many mistakes of the Howard Government.

Consistently libels critics of his Government: 'the Australian Fifth Column'. He would silence all dissent.

Consistently makes wild assertions about the state of the nation: 'Australia has just become an easier mark for terrorism.' He makes things up - like his hero.

Consistently reads everything on OLO while pretending he doesn't. He lies!

FrankGol,
Leigh who mate? I don't even bother reading his posts, he has nothing to contribute to a debate. At least I say what I feel, as you do, this bloke just repeats Liberal Party TV ad's.

Do yourself a favor and do what everyone else does just skip over his posts, it make for a better debate, all the very best mate.

Ditto Shonga.

Although, not quite.

I've trained myself to read Leigh's comments only after my coffee cup has been placed at a safe distance. It's a messy cleanup operation after you've laughed coffee all over the keyboard.

The mechanistic thinking and unimaginative conclusions of this article are typical of someone who has been trained in legal studies and who carries proudly and aloft the banner of the civil libertarians. The latter as yet cannot see the great distinction between a crime committed and a crime prevented and the distinct ways and means that are needed to apprehend its felons in each case.

Everyone knows when a crime is committed. But no one knows when a crime is GOING to be committed. And it’s much easier to search and find the suspects of the former, but it’s by far more difficult to identify the suspects of the latter. And while it might be easy to catch a felon who committed a crime and bring him/her to justice with the existing laws, it’s almost impossible to apprehend and bring to justice someone who is PREPARING to commit a crime with the same laws. It’s like in medicine. While one can cure a known and an occurring disease with the current remedies of medical science, one cannot prevent a relatively UNKNOWN DEADLY disease from spreading with the same remedies and one has to resort to hard and drastic measures to stop it from happening. Likewise in the age of terror to prevent a terrorist action from occurring, one has to take drastic, if not draconian, measures against it, because the conventional existing laws are totally ineffective to stop it.

It’s because of this cerebral inability of civil libertarians to see the fundamental distinction between a crime committed and a crime prevented and the different “remedies” that apply in each case, that all their strictures and arguments against the incursions of governments to people’s civil liberties, are trite, irrelevant, and intellectually out of depth.

See:http://australiacalls.blogspot.com

Lets look at the chronology of what happened.

There were two terrorist acts in the UK.
The UK police checked who they had been in contact with.
They found that Haneef had family contacts and informed the AFP.

Fine so far.

The AFP checked out Haneef and others.
They interviewed many Doctors.
They found Haneef was about to leave the country and thought it was odd.

Fine so far.

They detain Haneef under the terrorism laws and question him.
Haneef answers all the questions.

Then the AFP decide that they will not ask for more time to question Haneef, time they were entitled to ask for. They charge him. Avoiding the question of bias that was to be heard the next day.

This is when it gets messy.

Despite the fabrication of evidence, and ignoring the record of interview, presented by the prosecution. The magistrate grants bail.

It now gets political. The national security group gets together and instruct Andrews to revoke his visa. Not to enable his deportation but to keep him locked up.

Political interference in the judicial process.

Gaping holes appear in the prosecution case, the person who shares a great grandfather with Haneef, is charged with a minor offence. The sim card turns up hundreds of miles away.

The prosecution case is so flawed the charges are withdrawn. Andrews decides that Haneef is not a threat and can live in our community under less stringent conditions than were originally granted by the magistrate when she first granted bail.

Do you disagree Leigh? Do you understand why this is so wrong?