How can anybody believe anything that is stated publically by these lying rodents from our Commonwealth Govt.
Extract from the Australian.

Earlier, as Mr Andrews tried to defend his position, he found himself in more strife for misrepresenting the facts of the Haneef case in a morning television interview. Mr Andrews said Dr Haneef's arrest came as he left Australia on "the pretext" of wanting to see his newborn daughter, who had been born a month earlier. In fact, Haniya had been born six days before the arrest, Mr Andrews conceded later when issuing a transcript of his television interview

There’s a lot of naivety about, isn’t there? John Simpson demonstrates his with his apparent belief that the left is looking after our liberties.

And, of course, only the dreadful right wingers form military governments!

While the majority of Australians continue to keep their heads stuck up their backsides, we are certainly at risk of losing democracy. We came close during the Fraser/Hawke/Keating years – kerbs put on what we could say and to whom we could say it; enforced multiculturalism; borders opened up to cultures totally apposed to our way of life; increase in Islam and on and on.

We already have activist judges who think they should be stepping in to sort out the mess made by politicians and complacent citizens. Given the contempt most people feel for our politicians, and the increasing activism of the extreme left that knows it will never gain power through the ballot box – the judiciary and complacency, not people whose personal opinions you don’t like or some right wing army, is where the danger for Australia lies

The laws are there to protect Australians against terrorists. At the time Dr Haneef had many reasons to suspect he was possibly linked to the other terrorists in the UK
1) he was related 2) he had contact with them 3) he was in the same profession and 4) from the same country. Maybe none of these reasons individually make him a suspect but together, in the eye of any reasonable person must at the very least make him a possible suspect. This is what counts, he was at the time a possible suspect. Thus he should be held and questioned. It does not matter at all that he is later found innocent.
What would all these people be saying if he was not held and actually let off a bomb somewhere?
The safety of Australians must come first.
Withold his visa. Give an Australia Dr a job. Surely there must be a few sick people in India who need a Dr.

To the Surya Diva PART I

It is not at all relavent whether the he is innocent or guilty, or whether the evidence is good or bad. The whole point is that, due to the utter seriousness of the crimes that took place in the UK which very easily could have resulted in the slaughter of hundreds of innocent people (and only didn't due to their obvious stupidity and lack of technical skills despite being doctors), the Australian Federal Police did the right thing by detaining a highly probable connection (when one takes all the circumstantial evidence into account), and whether it pans out or not is a matter for our justice system which works better and fairer than most in the world, if one can even call some of them justice systems at all.

The authorities have done nothing wrong in this case. In fact, if they hadn't detained Dr Haneef before he got on the plane to India most probably the very same people would be also complaining about incompetence. I think that those who are against this case are from either of two camps:

(1) the Howard haters who have proven over the years that they are willing to back any horse no matter what it's character or beliefs or background just as long as that horse is running against the Howard horse. This was proven with Habib, Hicks, and the daily events of the left's alliance with racists, bigots and homophobes and even in some cases 911 supporters such as most of the Muslim leadership and many others from that community (If one wishes for proof of this if they have been on holiday for the past decade I will happily provide a long, long list of people and their crimes).

(2) the racist white or most often Anglo haters who are against anything and everything that looks white and seems to be proud of Anglo history. Usually these people are the Keysar Trads, Sheik Hilalis, Sheik Omrans, Walid Alee, Wassim Duherei of Hiz-but-Tahrir, George Megaloganis, and thousands of other Anglo hating racists.

ozzie, you make the same blunder that is so often repeated by the regular bloggers on this site; that any loss of civil liberties is justified if it might help to prevent a terrorist attack.

It is an obvious argument, but a bad one. People who defend liberties against police demands for more and more power are not unaware of it. Nor do they act in simple-minded belief that the threat of terrorist attacks is not real.

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.

To justify an intrusion on liberties, you need more than a proof that life is more important than liberty. You need to show that there is no better way of going about it; that there is no way of preventing or responding to a terrorist attack which is less intrusive on liberties. The intrusion must be kept to what is necessary. There should be safeguards, consistent with the end of preventing terrorism, to prevent misuse. And there should be compensation for innocent victims.

Civil libertarians are not arguing that no intrusion on liberties is justified to forestall terrorists. They’ve argued that some of the powers are not needed; and that others are dangerous, and need safeguards.

To Surya Diva PART II

The problem in a nutshell is that the standard of evidence is too high to be able to deal with events that occur in a Hobbsean warlike "state of nature", which is what the war with these racist terrorists is - civilized people who run on self-legislating morality and decency being confronted with gutter slime who are willing to brainwash little babies into agreeing with them because they are too scared to let thei so-called beliefs stand on their own merits.

Even though the courts could not find enough evidence to charge him, and he may have really known nothing about the attack by his cousins in the UK, the investigation was the only course of action considering all the circumstantial evidence. To be against the investigation is ludicrous. It means that you simply hate "Anglo man".

And to even speak about concepts such as human rights, international law etc, must be done within the context of the fact that these things aren't part of the fabric of soace, they don't just exist on their own, they exist only in this modern age and only in Western countries and only because (due to the rigourous identity shuffling process of the enlightenment and industrialization) the average Westerner has learned the true meaning of empathy, equality for all (not just for my pathetic little tribe), fairness, etc. This is why only Western nations have a massive immigration program that in Australia's case has resulted in demographic changes of more than 50%, and that only in Western nations people such as Mr Habib, Trad, Hilali and more can live here without being threatenned. In fact gangs of ethnic youth constantly attack and even kill Anglo kids.

It is these things which the terrorists are destroying, with help of so-called leftists. And quite frankly, Mr Diva, to not recognize that this investigation was a normal, non-sinister, necessary event, which by the way, came to a fair conclusion, is racist for a non-westerner. You are simply on his side because he is against us. What a sad, sorry creature.