The Government Gazette gets back to actual news gathering with a leaked transcript of one of the police interviews with Mohamed Haneef. The source of the leak raised quite some questions until it was revealed that the source was Haneef’s barrister. I’d just like to concentrate on what Haneef is actually being accused of – “recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation involved in the recent UK car bombings.”
Over at another thread at Surfdom commenter SJ spotted this:
Lateline was interesting tonight. The guy Haneef gave the SIM card to, Sabeel Ahmed, was also a doctor and the brother of one of the Glasgow bombers. Sabeel has been charged with witholding information that might have prevented a terrorist attack, because he received an e-mail from his brother directing him to the location of his will. The British Police say that this was a suicide note, and Sabeel should have alerted authorities.
The transcript of Haneef’s interview backs this up. According to page 102 of the leaked transcript, Mohamed Haneef did indeed give the SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed, who has been charged with “failing to disclose information that could have prevented an act of terrorism”. NDTV.com in India reports (though doesn’t source) the part about the email:
Sabeel was sent a text message by his brother Kafeel after the car bombs were planted in London but before the attack on Glasgow Airport.
The message contained the password for an internet email account.
Inside the email account was a folder containing Kafeel’s last will and testament and instructions on what to say to the police.
The instructions told Sabeel to say Kafeel was working on a project about global warming and was on holiday in Iceland and keep saying that to anyone who asked about him.
So, at this stage, Mohammed Haneef does indeed seem to have been charged with giving a SIM card to somebody who hasn’t actually been charged with being a terrorist – instead, somebody who has been charged with not immediately reporting a suspicious email from his brother to police. That strikes me as pretty tenuous to say the least.
UPDATE: Ken at Surfdom has a cracker of a post.
Y’know, if I were a Muslim doctor, receiving an email from my brother containing a link to a will and instructions about what to tell the “anyone who asked about him” wouldn’t immediately lead me to think “oh no, he’s going to bomb Glasgow Airport”.
The charge assumes that Sabeel Ahmed knew his brother Kafeel had radical extremist leanings and that “anyone who asked about him” necessarily meant the police rather than immigration authorities, the enforcer of a gambling debt, an ex-lover, their parents, etc etc etc. Just because the alarmists look at a Muslim acting oddly and think “uh-oh, terrorist” doesn’t mean that is going to be the first thought of a brother.
Perhaps the Prosecutor will indeed be able to establish that, but the connections look so flimsy.
Connections to criminality in about the same measure as connections to Royalty per the song:
The irony meter needle hit the maximum this week with Ruddock’s comment, the ethics or implied lack thereof of the leaker of Haneef’s transcripts. Whenever it comes to leaking by police or pollies over people charged with terrorism or on a wedge shit list as targets, the word siev springs readily to mind.
And let’s not forget Ruddock’s insistence on wearing an amnesty badge.
Indeed the case against Haneef is looking rather wobbly, but that’s not the point is it Mr Howard when the polls have you in the toilet?
The more Howard and Ruddock play this up, I think the more it will remind people in a timely manner of their approach to David Hicks – something they would have hoped would be forgotten by now.
After I came back from the UK, I left a prepaid SIM card with a friend of mine. By the standards applied to Haneef, if my friend’s relative or friend became a terrorist, I’d potentially be in the pooh.
I am listening to an interview with Ruddock right now on local ABC radio. He’s in the area to open a family planning centre, replete with Amnesty badge.
The man who is a conspirator in stopping a fellow human being from seeing his family and newborn child, is in a part of the country that as long as I can remember he has never officially visited before, to help families.
The irony metre just keeps moving right.
‘Tenuous’ might seriously overstate the case against Haneef.
The Government seems to be pursuing a political philosophy where the good of society, as determined by the executive, trumps the most basic rights of individuals.
Or perhaps, given their propensity to pursue wedge politics in a pre-election atmosphere, it is just the good of a political party.
The detention centres might have to be expanded to accommodate 21 Million people based on this.
Come on Carmen! The ABC, Fairfax and Burnside have done their part – get off your arse!
In a related vein, Ruddock (supported by Greg Sheridan) has expressed concern that the decision to grant bail to Haneef did not reflect the intention of the Parliament, when it passed the “anti-terror” laws, that granting of bail to “terrorism suspects” should be “rare”.
The logic of this position is that in such cases an application for bail should not simply be judged on the merits of the case, but according to whether granting bail would cause the proportion of successful applications to exceed some statistical definition of “rare”. This is an obvious recipe for injustice in individual cases. It would be akin to an academic refusing to award a student a High Distinction for an excellent essay because the number of HDs already awarded was the maximum permissible under a normal distribution, or a football umpire refusing to penalise a player for a blatant infringement of the rules because the previous couple of free kicks had also been awarded against that player’s teammates.
Further, the implication of the Ruddock/Sheridan position is that if, over time, the proportion of bail applications is “non-rare”, this must be due to judicial disregard for the will of the parliament, rather than other factors. Continuing the academic and football analogies, this is akin to arguing that an unusually high percentage of High Distinctions in a course, or one team being awarded many more free kicks than the other, must always be due to soft marking or biased umpiring respectively, and cannot be due to (say) a higher than average percentage of gifted and diligent students in the course, or one team playing better and fairer football than the other.
But aren’t judges meant to apply the letter of the law rather than do their own activist interpretations?
If the law as written allows for bail to be granted to terrorism suspects, and if what the government actually wanted was for bail never to be granted, then they should have written that clearly into the legislation.
I’ve no doubt that a writer for the Government Gazette would trust the Government Greg but I would trust the civil liberty lawyers before I would trust the Government or their mouthpieces.
Ah ha! The cunning of these people. And I had thought that their motivation, however tenuous the evidence, was to hold the man in respect of a terrorist attack, whereas all along they just wanted to stop him from seeing his wife and kid. What will they do next? Cordon off maternity wards?
A bit OT… But Paul at Melb Uni it states quite clearly in Arts’ faculty handbooks that the mean grade for 1st year arts subjects is 70. And a normal distribution about that mean which means yes, a certain number of H1/HD will be given for a subject.
ridiculous yes. but supposedly to stop the ‘grade creep’ where students in subjects with ’subjective marking’ end up with HD/H1 averages will students in science, eng etc don’t…
anyway, the Haneef case continues to astound me. and where’s the Governor-General on all this? and where can we vote to impeach?
m
Anyone who trusts a lawyer, let alone a civil liberty lawyer, needs help.
I think we could use more civil liberty lawyers in jail too, a la Lynne Stewart, as co-conspirators. After all, most of Australia’s were just the warm & cuddly PR end of the people smuggling industry only a while back.
There was a letter to the editor in The Oz today stating that the SIM card allegedly supplied by Haneef in July 2006 expired in August 2006. So that (if true — I tried to download the AFP transcript from The Oz but got “file not found” errors) makes any tenuous link of the SIM card to a terrorist act committed in July 2007 even .. err.. .tenuouser.
In Sheridan’s article linked by Paul Norton above, Sheridan finishes with:
Spot the fallacy? A true democracy has inherently a strong basis of human rights and sufficient numbers of “civil liberties lawyers” to protect those rights. Methinks Sheridan subscribes to trial by the “Democratic Government Gazette”
(Just in case my comment there is not posted):
Now, what if Sabeel had actually phoned the police to report this, and had used the phone that had Haneef’s SIM card in it? Would that make Haneef a hero? Perhaps entitle him to a knighthood?
I also am puzzled as to why Mr. Ruddock would want to associate himself with a disgusting bunch of oxygen thieves such as amnesty international.
His badge does however predate the current era, it is from a time when Amnesty had credibility.
It’s his only source of credibility.
It’s a memento from the days when he had a conscience.
Yeah, back in the 1980s when they wouldn’t advocate for the terrorist Mandela.
Has there been any progress in the investigation as to who _actually_ sold Dr. Haneef the phone plan in the first place? Surely this would have to be a priority, haven’t heard anything in the media about this though…
One of Latho’s best sledges in parliament – crude but effective, to Ruddock
“Hand in your badge, Adolf”
Hehe, not one of Latham’s brightest moments. The man was daily proof that it is better to be silent & thought a fool than opening his mouth & proving it.
I have extensively canvassed Dr. Haneef issue already on my blog at
http://au.360.yahoo.com/profile-ijpxwMQ4dbXm0BMADq1lv8AYHknTV_QH
Just to add.
Whatever the guilt or innocence of Dr. Haneef should be left to the DUE PROCESS OF LAW as is permitted within the constitutional framework. Oops, the last bit “within the constitutional framework� is precisely what is not and has not been applied. Then forget about Dr. Haneef rather concentrate on the TERRORIST in the Federal Government who are abusing and misusing their powers. As my blog sets out, laws that are beyond constitutional powers are no laws at all and have no legal force. The laws currently used against Dr. Haneef are unconstitutional and so we should support Stephen Keim SC making clear that he is concerned about how it will effect his grandchildren, as we should all be concerned how it will effect our grandchildren. If we allow this ongoing TERRORISM by the Federal government to continue a kind of KGB/Stormtroopers/SS conduct we soon will have no rights at all.
I have assisted many people in preparing their last testament and will, even those who killed themselves not long thereafter, but I do not consider that makes me an associate of a terrorist merely because the person killed himself in a car “accident�!
The cost of this all should be a warning to us all that the Federal Government is using taxpayers moneys unchecked (and unconstitutionally) as some political campaign to get back those fools who accept this kind of Government TERRORISME is acceptable. Didn’t they same occur with the rise of Hitler, and later those who supported him suffered the consequences when he turned against them?
As the framers of the Constitution made clear the Federal government would have no powers against an “imaginary� enemy. Yet this is what the ASIO amendment Act (Terrorism Act) purports to do. Declare war against any INDIVIDUAL in case they might be somehow associate with a terrorist. Now better do not send a Christmas card to someone who later may be associated with a terrorist, as you could be charged for aiding and abetting TERRORISM as you wished them a merry Christmas.
Perhaps, we should lock up all members of the Federal Parliament in Christmas Island detention centre and we will all be a lot safer and have less terrorism to suffer from.
Sounds like there are now 7 degrees of separation Robert, now with a coating of egg!
SMH today:
Well may it dissolve the link. But then, what will dissolve the egg on the faces of the AFP, the Government Gazette, Ruddock & the gang???
Roll on the Seventh of August.
I want to see someone take ministerial responsibility for this cock-up. Two someones actually. Or is that a pipe dream?
Gummo – you lolled me up good with that ‘un.
Ministerial Responsibility – see Quaint Anachronisms
Well done, lads. Any credibility in the government and AFP’s ability to handle terrorism cases fairly has been destroyed.
No ministers will take responsibility of course. Keelty to be their scapegoat.
At the GG Shanahan pops his head up only to have the relevations of today smack down his apologetics.
Shaun, the response is astounding. Looks like the Howard Government and their rent a crowd cheersquad have just ploughed into an iceberg.
Have to admit that the idea is laughable FDB. For a moment there, I had a rush of blood to the head at the thought that there are two ministerial scalps up for the taking, if the ALP has the ticker to go after them.
There’s nothing amusing about the presumption that they won’t, though, is there?
Gummo can’t see how the ALP could fail to take advantage of this now. It has been thee biggest legal cockup since the ‘Dingo took my baby case’ by the looks of things. I think you’ll find it’s the opportunity Rudd has been waiting for. So far we have had messing with Howard’s head from Rudd. Time now to go for the throat.
“if the ALP has the ticker to go after them.”
Well there’s the rub, no? Methinks they’re so used to a lack of media support for complex messages like “let’s keep our civil liberties intact” and so used to a lack of media support full stop that they’d rather play it safe.
I don’t know how long it’ll be till they get their bottle back – or if they even really care enough beyond a few do-gooders. What I don’t get is that nobody seems to really be running the wedge on this. As has been pointed out here and elsewhere (but not that I’ve heard by the ALP) what the fark do the classical liberals in the coalition make of all this?
Shamaham’s dribble from FDB’s link:
Huh?
Among many things, the debate should be about whether the AFP had any just cause at all to subject Dr Haneef to prolonged police scrutiny, prolonged detention, partial disclosure of evidence at their disposal.
And look at Shamaham’s weasel word “further”. This implies the need for legislative changes that take administration of justice further away from tried and true juridical methods.
Shamaham should be judged and condemned for blatant begging of the question.
steve,
I hope you’re right. We’ll see around 2:00pm on August 7th, won’t we?
There’s a ideological shuffle played by the right. They start with the proposition that parliamentary legislation trumps court decisions (Hayek of course would have rejected this) but then they slide to the entirely separate proposition that the executive is exempt from any obligation to obey the law and that it can make up the law as it goes along. This theory of the super executive as Schmittian sovereign is popualr on the US right as Glenn Greenwald has shown.
hey, if i lend my sim card to someone naughty, is there a chance someone might deport me, at least till after the election?
Oh rats, i forgot, i’m a citizen of this increasing bizzare country.
Since Howard & Co’s attempt to instill Fear about the unions and failed to change the poll ratings, then their attempt to use Prejudice failed to change the poll ratings, I thought from the beginning that the Haneef situation would be another attempt at wedge politics, designed to increase both Fear AND Prejudice to change the poll ratings. When Keelty and Ruddock started spruiking their prejudicial comments I was sure I was right and reading the transcript, I knew I was right. The revelation today has proved that I was right.
What is shocking is how the government and AFP together engaged in this dastardly plan of lies and deceit in order to con the gullible and naïve yet again, in what has turned out to be an aborted attempt to change the poll ratings. This series of deceit and lies shows that this government, with the support of the AFP will go to any lengths to con and manipulate the voting public. This is very worrying, too close to a police state and too close to the ‘game’ played by Hitler before he took total control of Germany. Perhaps Steve is right and if Howard wins again, those of us who dare to speak up may end up on Christmas Island. Having worked in the justice field most of my working life, I am especially concerned about this, the false evidence, the prejudicial statements, the corruption of the legal and justice system in what appears to a combined plan of wedge politics. Be worried, be fearful, of what the Howard government will do to further the police state if he gets reelected.
Iam of Indian origin, living in Australia, and have seen lots of cases where hundreds of people die and the jihadis go scot free. The government does not do much as otherwise, they would loose the muslim votes. Be happy folks, that you have sincere politicians, even if they look silly in Haneef’s case.
The doubt arises because, if Haneef had planned to go to India to see his family, he, in all likelyhood would have had some spare cash to go to India and would not have asked his father-in-law to book his ticket. It is very unusual for a Indian guy to ask his father-in-law for this kind of a help, unless in an absolute emergency and by his own admission, he was planning to go to India much before Jul 2nd. There is certainly something very suspicious about Haneef. One more factor is he seems hardly to have any non-muslim friends, which is very unusual for a guy from Bangakore, the city where I come from.
And there is even more suspicion as to why Howaed, Ruddoch and Andrews are prepared to trample over the Judiciary to fan those suspicions about Haneef.
Thanks for the info, Srinivas.
Ethnological insights into Bangalore culture would appear to be at least as valid reasons for locking Dr Haneef up as anything the AFP have adduced so far.
Srinivas – Thanks for sharing your experience and insight here. I think most of us here agree he certainly needed to be carefully scrutinised. Most thinking prople would also agree the part about him heading off to India at short notice, paid for by his father- in-law when he is a well paid doctor is odd. Perhaps he will turn out to be a sleeper who is just good at keeping his mouth shut. Who knows?
I guess the point is our justice system used to have a concept of innocent until proven guilty and its something a lot of us arent happy to let go easily. And we are uncomfortable with the feds hysterical willingness to ‘politick’ the entire terrorism issue the way they have.
SO, even if Haneef isn’t innocent, we haven’t got anything of substance to prove it that would warrant his present treatment.
Srinivas! Your words amount to blasphemy on this site.
You put three sacred cows into perspective:
John Howard is not a cackling anti-christ;
Haneef may actually have done something to attract police interest, and;
There are countries on this earth which actually have an executive who couldn’t care less about the suffering of the people.
How dare you speak commonsense on a fantasy website!