The Federal Court has overturned Minister for Immigration Kevin Andrews decision to rescind Dr Haneefs visa, on the grounds that he applied the wrong test.

Given the general air of farce that has surrounded this case from the get go, can Andrews claim any credibility as a responsible Minister?

Of course not - however, he was just doing his master's bidding.

How much compensation do you think Dr Haneef will be awarded, should he decide to sue the Federal government for the various injustices that he has clearly suffered at their hands?

If the decision is upheld on appeal (and I'm running with the thought that the government cannot afford to leave it alone), then there is probably going to be at least loss of income, as well as compensation for the loss of dwellings and so on.

Whether there are punitive damages is another question.

Obviosly the whole thing has turned into a farce but one would assume that Andrews had legal advise that he was acting legally. If so then I don't see why he should resign. However if he acted without legal advise he should resign.

It not just the legal aspect here. Andrews basically circumvented the judicial process, regardless of any protests that immigration is a seperate process to the judicial system. Rather than waiting for the process to work its way through, he put himself above the judicial system. This is not something we want in a Minister.

Good Grief.... we have James the aspiring politician, Peppy the Muslim and the 'leftoid'... (thats you CJ) no 'religious nutters' here... I better fix that.

But frivolity out of the way, I don't know why everyone is acting like they know all the ins and outs of this case when they are in fact acting only on 'drip feed' information.

I cannot see why the AFP would release ALL information about the case, because it might jeapordize their methods of gathering intelligence.

Is there a possibility that 'political expedience' played a role in the case ? well.. more like this, it is highly unlikely that it did not.

What fascinates me though, is that those who criticize the government handling of the affair, seem to do so more for political advantage rather than any sense of justice, though they would be loathe to admit it.

I also doubt that any replacement government in the form of the critics of the current Gov, would 'handle' things in the same way if the subject in question was more an object of loathing to the 'left' or if he symbolized some issue which the left enjoys capitalizing on.

Bottom line, I'm cynical about ALL government, whether left or right, and I'm more cynical about those who from one side or the other, criticize the incumbents.

"He who is without sin...cast the first stone"

The best criticism and the most believable, comes from those who clearly have no vested interest in destroying the incumbent government. I'm yet to see such from any quarter.

BOAZ,

So what you're saying is that we should accept everything the government tells us without question? Yeah cos thats a great way to ensure the government is accountable.

For the record I think both sides of politics have been woeful on this. The government screwed up in a major way and the opposition followed like sheep.

Yes I'm going to run for the Senate, so there is always going to be questions about my motives, I accept that, it comes with the territory. However I can be sure in myself that my criticism of the government does not come from some attempt to win votes, but from a deeply held belief that you don't throw out the baby with the bath water. In this case the baby being the core values of our justice system, the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process.

If your view of the world is that the justice system should be any other way then I'm sorry I reject that outright.

However, Boazy is to be commended for almost posting an entire comment without a biblical reference.

In which State are you running James, if you don't mind me asking?

Haneef should just be thankful the federal government don't apparently have a stomach breaches of legit people of residence's civil liberties (or public opinion on it)...unlike the yanks. Dr Haneef is going to be a major thorn in the side of Howard for a long time to come...well, months anyway.

Well they've released the transcript of the second interview and initial opinion is there is nothing in it that could put in danger any ongoing investigation. Things are not looking up for Andrews.

CJ, I'm going to be running in New South Wales

The judge has made a decision on a fairly technical point. Mr Russo did not sound very happy about that. If Mr Andrews had been given slightly different advice by the Solicitor-General's office then there would have been no question about the decision about revoking his visa.

James,

You cite "the core values of our justice system, the Presumption of Innocence and Due Process" and like others seem to think these notions are sacred cows.

Even acknowledging the central role they play, they are and have always been balanced against the practicalities of having a working system. They are not absolutes - if they were then bail would be an automatic right. It is not.

Unfortunately, in terrorism cases, not all the intelligence information may be available to the court, and more unfortunately, courts aren't always permitted the discretion to look at the big picture. This recent debacle was over a court's ruling that the minister had applied the wrong test. The court, unlike the minister, was almost certainly solely concerned with the minister's authority to make his decision on the grounds he did but NOT the threat this man may poses to the Australian community. For that reason alone it is stupid to form a view of the minister's motives based on the decision of the court.

Now given the earlier 'fudgy' evidence on sim cards and other circumstantial 'evidence' there is good reason to question the credibility of the case against Haneef, but I doubt the minister would be prolonging the embarassment of this debacle unless he really was concerned.

If members of our executive government identify a serious threat to Australia, I would rather they do whatever they have to to protect us from that threat, rather than stand aside in compliance with the niceties of due process which the court's police.

A hypothetical: if the CIA and British intelligence services advised ASIO they had information that Mr X was going to remotely detonate a bomb (let's say a weapon of mass destruction just to be dramatic) in a major Australian city sometime soon. Do you really want our government to take no action against Mr X, just because we had no detailed evidence which could be used in court?

Seriously?

Due Process and the Presumption of Innocence should be considered sacred, without them the system is open to massive abuses.

You obviously have a much higher regard for Kevin Andrews than I do. I do not believe that he is continuing with this because he is seriously concerned over Dr Haneefs threat to this country, instead he cannot afford to let it go without doing damage to his governments reputation as "tough on national security".

It wasn't just Andrews who got it wrong. The AFP botched the case as well, possibly even misrepresenting woeful evidence to the minister in order to justify their ongoing detention of Dr Haneef.

I want to see a full inquiry into the whole affair. If the government is going to persist with "taking our rights so they can save them" then the public needs to be sure that the people in charge aren't a bunch of cowboys.

James,

I don't disagree with your sentiments regarding a full enquiry. Regardless of Haneef's guilt or innocence someone has stuffed up big time bringing the whole system into disrepute.

I simply make the point that the "presumption of innocence" is not and has never been an ABSOLUTE right, otherwise we would never incarcerate anyone before they were convicted of an offence. Our system has always allowed the incarceration of people prior to any trial, in various circumstances.

For example: When police arrest someone other than a convicted escapee, they do so only on suspicion, yet they are able to hold him or her, without trial, for a period prescribed by law. Whether that period is 24 hrs, 1 week, 6 months or 5 years is rightly a question for the ELECTED government.

Now please address the hypothetical question in my previous post. If faced with such a position how would you choose between following the legal processes or proactively protecting your country?

If you can't answer the question hypothetically, why do you aspire to put yourself in a position where that question could one day be put to you for real?

Kalin1,

Okay lets deal with your question. If I was ever in the position that ASIO would have to come to me with evidence obtained from Mi5 or the CIA about a plot to blow up a remote bomb and said "we have reasonable grounds based on this this and this evidence that this person is plotting to commit a terrorist act", then there would be no problem in arresting the person on charges relating to conspiracy to committing an act of terrorism.

On the other hand if ASIO came to me and said "We think this guys going to blow up a remote bomb based on evidence that we can't and won't show you, you'll just have to trust us" then I'm going to have issues with that.

James,

ASIO may or may not have been given hard evidence, but even if they had, and they could show you, much of it may well not be useable in court under the rules of evidence. This is almost certainly the situation the minister is in.

Even if Asio can give you nothing but the CIA and British Intelligence's assurance, you, as the hypothetical elected government official, still have to decide whether to do nothing for lack of legally useful evidence, or take action to ensure the safety of the public. The fact you "had issues" and balked at answering the question ought to show you the predicament the minister may well have faced with a case like Haneef.

I'm not saying the minister is right (and no I'm not a fan - I don't think I'd ever heard of this guy before) but how can anyone rationally be sure he's wrong without having detailed knowledge of all the unreported intelligence he is privy to.

Oh, and don't read too much into the fact some evidence against Haneef was fudgy. I knew a criminal defence lawyer years ago who got quite a few of his clients off because the evidence against them had been fudged by the Police. They weren't innocent, it was just that the cops were so keen to get his evil clients off the street they tried to put the trial beyond doubt and it backfired. This may well have been what happened in the Haneef case. Overzealous cops, who often feel they have one hand tied behind their backs by the legal system, go too far, and it back fires.

Now back to the hypothetical. Setting your "issues" aside, do you ignore ASIO's unsubstantiated warnings, or do you infringe poor Mr X's rights?

kalin1,

I'm not saying do nothing. There a range of perfectly valid actions that can be taken without the need to pull the guy in and lock him away without access to a lawyer for an indefinite period of time.

Options available include pulling Mr X in for questioning, searching his house (with a valid warrant) or place of work, placing Mr X under surveillance and so on. All of these options are available to police under normal procedures. If they turn up any evidence they believe is serious enough to warrant arresting Mr X then go for it.

Where the problem lies is in the new powers, searches without judicial warrants, secret evidence and secret trials (both of which refer to after the fact events). There is also a massive problem of a lack of oversight. There is no real mechanism for preventing abuses with these powers.

James,

ultimately, the integrity of our political/legal system is less dependant on the inflexibility of the system than on the integrity of the people in it. The Politicians, the Judiciary, the lawyers, the police, and the bureaucrats. As maligned as these people are, it is fundamental to a working democracy that we trust our elected leaders at least a little. Frankly, it's the whole point of a democracy. We vote for them to lead us!

Do I trust the Government to have unlimited rules to arrest and round up everyone they want to. No, but collectively they have always been in a position to grab those powers any time they want to. So we have to trust that they will continue to show such restraint in future. As it stands I am unaware of hundrends of random people being rounded up due to these new laws. Given the Government has all these powers so many people are worried about, it's curious they aren't using them. Is it possible they are being responsible?

Going back to the hypothetical: Your failure to arrest Mr X might, as ASIO have advised you, prove catastrophic. How would you sleep at night if our Mr X was to launch his attack and say, blow up a school bus. Would you simply blame the police you asked to watch him, or would you feel responsible. Even the possibility of it ought to make you sick.

When you decide whether to act on ASIO's advice, you have to weigh up the possibility you are detaining an innocent man (who happens to be suspected by ASIO), against the sickening possibility you will facilitate MASS murder if you do nothing.

If you hold him, at least you can find out more and release him later when you are sure. If you release him you may never get a second chance.

I don't envy the minister who has to make that call, but nor would I despise him whatever his decision.

See thats the problem, you are willing to trust that future governments won't abuse these powers. I'm not. There are just too many examples of really really bad things happening.

What we can agree on though is the need for a full enquiry, if nothing else the Haneef case bungled pretty badly, and the decision making processes and the full range of evidence needs to be assessed to ensure that something like this doesn't happen again.

James, it's not that I am happy to trust them, it's just that we don't have any choice about it. Politicians can grab these powers readily anyway, just as they have done with these powers. Whether or not these powers were enacted, if we in the future get the 'evil' government you apparently fear, that wants these powers to arrest all their opponents and 'subjugate us' we won't be able to stop them. The beauty of our system, The beauty of our parliamentary system is that this is a very unlikely outcome for the simple reason the power is diluted amongst 100 or so parliamentarian's and senators.

Whilst the absolute power of a dictator produces tyrants, by dividing up the power so widely amongst people who don't entirely trust each other, the odds of producing such a tyrant are extremely small. Neither John Howard nor Kevin Rudd enjoy anything like absolute loyalty from their parties. If they or future leaders started doing the sort of things you are fearful of, they would lose the support of their parties, parliament and even cabinet.

By extrapolation, the logic of people who would disallow parliament from passing these recent laws, we ought also to disband the army lest the politician's misuse it, or perhaps suspend parliament's power to make any new laws, lest they misuse it.

At the end of the day, we elect our leaders so they can lead. We cannot both give them the power which goes with being elected and simultaneously panic whenever they use it. You have to judge governments on what they do or commit to doing, not on what they theoretically 'might' do.

After Dr Hannef case, Andrew is known as a RACIST more than the past.

I have seen that even Christians have turned against him.

Andrew proved that he is NOT decision maker, he is a small puppy of a particular group that follow a specific guideline.