Stephen Keim knows better than any in the legal profession what it means to defend a client who doesn't know the evidence against them. Had the "veil of secrecy" had not been drawn aside to reveal a complete absence of evidence, the fate of Dr Haneef may have been very different.

The right to freedom from arbitrary detention and the right to know what one is accused of if detained are fundamental freedoms that are too important to be left with the common law as sole defender.

As the situation stands, the courts are no match for our grossly inflated domestic security agency. Scott Parkin, Mohammed Sagar and Muhammad Faisal all face the same fate that befell Hussain when he was denied the right to know what ASIO accused him of doing, saying - or thinking - to warrant the cancellation of his passport.

With just a whisper from ASIO in the ear of Ruddock's successor, Robert McClelland, the right to a fair and open hearing could evaporate: http://www.scottparkin.org/actnow.php

Thanks to the National Security Information Act, introduced by the Howard Government with the Opposition's support, the Attorney General retains the power to issue a "conclusive certificate" preventing the appearance of evidence or witnesses in both civil and criminal cases on "national security" grounds.

In practice, this means that a civil claim against ASIO cannot ever succeed, so long as the Attorney General believes whatever claims ASIO chooses to make about the dire threat to national security posed by the orderly turning of the wheels of justice. Unless, of course, ASIO deigns to tell you what you are supposed to have done out of the goodness of its heart, if indeed it has one.

As for Haneef - well, he can just thank his lucky stars that even ASIO chose to keep its paws out that particular train wreck. As the three-year cases of Parkin, Sagar and Faisal illustrate, anyone who loses, or is refused, a visa on ASIO's say so faces a long - and potentially futile - wait for justice.

The author although arguing for a bill of rights really has demonstrated the need for a bill of government. Such a bill would limit the rights and powers of government so situations illustrated do not occur again. Historically bill of rights where granted from sovereigns under threat from parliament as sovereigns where the major threat to the people. The major threat to the people is now government itself, As the people are theoretically sovereign in our democracy then it should be them telling the government what they can and cannot do not the other way around as in fascist states. If all rights are held by the people why should we allow a government the servant of the people restrict them, should we not draw a line and say beyond this point you cannot pass.

I agree with most of the comments above and our ultimate goal in a social democracy should be transparency and accountability.

If indeed the information against Hussain could not be released because of national security considerations why not allow an agency like IGIS to investigate as an independent body to ascertain the validity of ASIO's findings against Hussain. IGIS findings then could be presented to the court without revealing other sensitive information. Otherwise 'in the interests of national security' will become the mantra to avoid taking responsibility for mistakes and mis-assessments.

There might be instances where revelation of findings might impede a current investigation into a terrorist group but there should be a security cleared body like IGIS that can provide checks and balances separate to national security agencies like ASIO and ASIS. Or a parliamentary committee set up to review cases like this as they arise.

I think part of the problem is that when agencies like the AFP or ASIO receive information about a person of interest, the investigation should always proceed on the presumption of innocence until all the facts are known as with the mobile phone debacle with Haneef.

who will be next Spikey asks?

Well I hope its the Saudi bloke I met a while back who told me with regard to verse 29 of the 9th chapter of the Quran.. (fight them who do not believe).. that the 'Jihad will continue to the end of the age"..

yep..I surely hope it is him.

I also know...that if certain means of surveillance were disclosed to suspects.. it would jeapordize future effectiveness of that surveillance..I know because I made part of the equipment.

There is no way known...that such things can be revealed to the public.

Complaining (whining) about how the case was handled by Asio is probably valid.

But suggesting that this bloke got off on anything other than a technicality is absurd!

The evidence..

{When Mr Ul-Haque returned to Australia, Customs officers searched his bags and found books and a letter by him addressed to his family in which he stated that he was going to Kashmir for "jihad" and that he intended to join LeT.}

Says it all. The man was planning to join a terrorist organization.. by his own unforced confession.. in a personal letter to his mother.
What more does any reasonable person need?

That alone is game over except for some smart alec lawyer who cares nothing about the mans plans..just whether he can get him off.

How many LIVES would he have taken if he had succeeded in joining LET?

Nothing makes me quite as sick as those who rejoice at the mistrial or freedom of a man who by his own confession plans to be a terrorist.

They have simply taken their next 'fix' of anti security drugs until the high wears off.. let's hope that their children or loved one's are not among those who may one day be dismembered in a blast of ammonium nitrate and ball bearings as they watch the footy...

But based on the amoral evil joy they derive from such things.. given a choice of my loved one's or their's.. I'd prefer it was theirs.
Then they might feel the consquences of their mindless, infantile and unsound actions..

What a nice little earner the GWOT has turned out to be for sly-boys everywhere, including our own indigenous ones - including some of the sly-boys in the AFP obviously.

There are no rules, save those you make up as you go.

No-one may know what's going on in those foetid little brains. Oh, it's a biiiiiig secret!

Obviously, such an arrangement is the worst breach of security that a country can have. The ability to "backdoor" any old sort of neocon muck straight into the twitchy minds of secret policemen (who have garnered what is left of privacy for themselves alone) is total insanity.

We have quite literally put the inmates in charge of the asylum.

This cannot be allowed to stand. The very roots of this weed must be revealed, because they die when exposed to the sunlight.

Mind you, Kennedy said he was going to break the CIA into a thousand pieces, and we all know what happened to him shortly thereafter.

- so, my point is - time runs short -