Thank you Ellen Goodman for crystallising some of the key isssues of principle in this scandalous case.

The separation of powers, the liberty of the person, the presumption of innocence, the onus of proof, the right to know the allegations against you and the right to be heard in your defence - all of these were jeopardised in this instance (and may still be if the Government wins the appeal).

I think you summed up this case very clearly: "... the unscrupulous use of a matter involving a person’s personal liberty for propaganda purposes."

This case demonstrates that when it comes to safeguarding our democracy, it is this Government not Dr Haneef who represents the real threat.

The only way to resolve this abuse is for two things to happen - 1. A bill of rights and 2. A bill of government that would limit the government to certain areas of action. Under Howard their has been a systmatic centralisation of Power -for a liberal he is worse than a classic socialist . And his latest states bashing with him arguing for more power to Canberra should be sending danger signals to us all about the accumulation of power . The government needs to be limited

From my view ,if the states,certainly the one I live in, are dysfunctional and there is suffering that should never be allowed, then the Federal government should have the responsibility of stepping in and putting wrongs to right.
The Australian people should have the right to good health care, protection from crime and the right to a decent education. The poorest of the population must have the knowledge that that their protection is paramount.
And that protection certainly should extend to the safety from terrorism. In view of the Australian deaths twice in Bali and other terrorist action globally, it is far better to be on the side of caution than having any regard for bleeding heart crocodile tears.

The author and Howard haters ignore that Haneef lied even to the hospital that he was working for in order to get a job. Why don't the civil libertarians back someone who tells the truth. First they back someone who takes up arms against Australians and now someone who lies to get here not to mention his connections with bombers. No wonder many don't trust our lawyers, lecturers or judges.

Runner says (and nary a blush):

"The author and Howard haters ignore that Haneef lied even to the hospital that he was working for in order to get a job."

Tell you what Runner: I'll accept your position if you can look us all staright in the eye and tell us you didn't vote for John Howard knowing he lied "in order to get a job".

Runner then asks: "Why don't the civil libertarians back someone who tells the truth"? And he manages to keep a straight face - even while images of Never-ever GST, children overboard and weapons of mass destruction pollute the ether.

Ah the hypocrisy of the right!

FrankGol,

I happen not to be as suspicious of John Howard as you. I am sure that every man on earth has told a lie. By nature we are all prone to exaggerate and tell half truths. Jesus Christ is the only person who lived who has never lied.

You seem to conveniently ignore that Mr Howard went to the election clearly outlining his plan for the GST. You also ignore that both the Labour party and the United Nations believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Sure they were proved wrong but to somehow suggest Mr Beasley would not of supported the US is totally dishonest.

Now back to the article.
My point is that I do not think that a person who has links to terrorism and who lied to get to Australia is the sort of character we want in this nation