ruawake

I agree with your description.

BUT Haneef is Muslim. Aren't all terrorists (except Tamils, same diff) Muslims these days?

Right or wrong counterterrorism laws over the last 6 years have been written precisely to address the rise of Islamic terrorism. Its probably realistic they have been written this way, but a distorted mindset has crept in with them.

The Government relied on the new convention regarding terrorists (who are only Muslim in Australia) that Dr Haneef must be held till he is proven innocent.

At an early stage in the Haneef case Secret Evidence was mentioned. Phonetaps and informants spring to mind, but given the exhaustive search of Haneef's flat the Secret Evidence may centre on the strategic leak by somebody (AFP? DPP? probably a Minister's Office) concerning "A senior source confirmed yesterday that emails between Dr Haneef and his cousins, Kafeel and Dr Sabeel Ahmed, in Britain were now seen as possible evidence." http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22112617-5006301,00.html

If the AFP still wants to tender its Secret Evidence Haneef MAY have a case to answer. The AFP may has worked intensively over the last three weeks to prove Haneef's guilt but the lack of evidence and political pressures are indicating he's innocent.

If he'd been white and Christian the issues naturally would not have arisen nor been suspected. Suspected of terrorism till proven innocent for designated groups now seems the legal yardstick, of course.

Problem (for this Government) is the people found out too much about the legal defects of the Haneef case and the people spoke.

Problem for everyone is that in the course of a Government vote rigging case of crying wolf the AFP has been over-pressured and is now demoralised. The next example of terrorism in Australia may be real and explosive.

I think the Government shouldn't stuff around with the law for votes.

Pete

plantagenet,
Makes one wonder what all the shouting "Hick's is innocent", "Hick's is innocent", was about. After the cry and hue we find David had been turning everyone he had ever met since year one and seeking profit. Now with Haneef, the same crew is shouting down the Howard government, anti-terrorism units, and the police again. All in the name of excessive use of power with out knowing the real story behind the media chatter. Perhaps. Just perhaps. If Haneef ever wants to get home to his wife and not gunned down as he steps off the plane. He will need the cover of being victimised by that cruel western democracy that goes around stripping folks of their human rights with out the slightest provocation. It's worked for the Palestinians. Not one of them is a terrorist and all are victims of Israeli hegemony. Then again, ask the Israeli to account for the massive numbers of suicide bombers that have exploded amongst their people and not mention Palestinians. Ask the Spanish about their terrorist experience and who have been victimised by Spanish justice. Ask the British. Ask the Indians. Ask the Pakistani, the Afghani, the Lebanese, the Egyptians, the Iranians, the Iraqi's, the Turkmenistan's, the Turkestan's, the Uzbekistan's, the Filipino's, The Algerians, the Ethiopians and the Sudanese. Etc. Etc.

For the rest I agree Pete. I don't know anything about Haneef. I can only say that if he has the slightest sense of what is right and what is wrong. That he won't be playing at silly buggers and will be fully cooperative in his investigation and answering the government with out reservation. If he is innocent he will be released and the investigation finished. Who knows what information he has to part with. The government does not "need" a terrorist, and no ranking government official wants to be the screw up that let a explosion go off and kill 1 person or 3000 or bring down any building on top of the citizenry. No government official wants to wear that. Definitively end of career to say the least.

MANY DIMENSIONS to the Haneef case.

My opinion is this.

1/ The genuine fear of what he may have been contemplating, was persuasive enough to lead the AFP to seek 'all and any' means of restricting his movements while they investigated the situation.

2/ After the investigation looked a little dodgy, there might have been political influence to 'beat up' the situation as a kind of pre-election Tampa-II deal..(not that I personally disagreed with the way Tampa was handled)

3/ There may be information which cannot be revealed to the public which caused more intense scrutiny of Haneef.

Given my own experience with the AFP, I don't think there is a 'gung ho' attitude....they are more restrained than over zealous.
So, while it is difficult for Dr Haneef, he should understand, that even blind Nellie could be forgiven for suspecting he knew more than he was letting on about what happened in Glasgow, given his personal family connection.

CONCLUSION. The most we can say really, in the absence of full information, is that 'to the extent' Haneef may have been wrongly held or treated, then it is unacceptable.

The Way We Vote for Power?

Can we agree that 'power ought not to be used in an arbitrary or unreasonable fashion, by ignoring relevant considerations, for improper purpose, without complying with the required procedure, by acting under dictation, or in total disregard of constitutional principles'.

Like many, I am not in a position to defend Haneef or discredit the prosecution case against him for “recklessly” providing support to a terrorist organisation.

I am concerned about the merit of evidence being argued in the Haneef case, especially between the agencies of government departments.

As stated in this article "Australia, like other countries, has a right and power to defend itself against terrorist threats arising from both inside and outside.

And "The Australian Government has a duty under the Constitution as well as international law to protect civil liberties not only of its citizens, but also of non-citizens in some cases."

I am deeply suspect of the equivocal process in service techniques, the quality of communications that transpired between officals, which lead to the bypassing of due process.

I am appalled by the factors concerning the "Solitary confinements (to which Haneef has been subjected), harsh detention conditions".

I fear that any reckless use of the anti-terrorism laws may prove counter-productive in the longer-term, and especially where (it is agreed) "innocent incarceration provides a fertile ground for germinating the seeds of terrorism."

I wish for an Australian Government to show character in protecting the human rights not only of its citizens (like David Hicks) but also of those non-citizens who are living in Australia legally for legitimate reasons (like Dr Haneef).

Citizenship is at the core of issues surrounding tactical inter-relations of regional and national states, and the way that states may use their powers to arrest or detain citizens indefinitely, without appropriate charge.

http://www.miacat.com/
.

Good to see reasoned comments from a decent lawyer, Themistocles. Your final paragraph sums up the flaws of the civil libertarians.

For the rest of you who like to pretend you don’t read my posts; pretend you dismiss them, I really wish you would do exactly as you claim to do. The only problem with that is that you don’t have the backbone or the ability to express your own opinions on any subject, having to, rather, lurk like rock spiders for someone else to express an original and sincere opinion so that you can have a go at it.

I don't care about your opinion of my opinions, so stop wasting your time. All you are doing is proving that (a) you don't have opions or, (b) you are not sure that your opinions will stand up to scrutiny or even, (c) that you have the ability to change other people's minds.

The only person using OLO of the left pursuasion who has any respect from me is Sneekepeete. The rest of you are nitwits and ratbags.

Make sure you are all there to wave Haneef off as he heads back to India, never to return to Australia.

Leigh says:

"The only person using OLO of the left pursuasion who has any respect from me is Sneekepeete. The rest of you are nitwits and ratbags."

Sneekepeete, I'm really sorry, mate. You didn't need that endorsement. My deepest condolences.