Why is my last comment in moderation?

Stoush prevention, Greg. Enough said, I hope.

… questions were being asked in the Government about why Australia’s security agencies did not identify Haneef as a risk in the first place.

So now our security agencies have the responsibility for protecting the Government from embarrassing shaming itself.

This is worth a look too.

What a surprise – NOT.

The Government’s incompetency, slackness, and disingenuousness has endangered us all.

Hear hear! But now their incompetence and political machinations are more obvious and criticism of the actions mounts they have decided to refrain from any further comment on the case. Batten down the hatches and avoid accountability . . . when the going gets tough the devious ones shut up.

Strong words in The Age’s editorial:

Haneef, who languishes in his cell, pending an appeal hearing in the Federal Court on August 8, is officially described as a “terrorist prisoner”. It should be remembered that he has only been charged, not tried or convicted. In reality, Haneef may be in detention, but so, too, is Australia’s democratic system. The independence of the judiciary remains affected by what still has to be seen as government intervention.

I heard Senator the Hon. Christopher Ellison say in Sydney in 2005 at a business forum that “terrorism is really just another crime”.

So why is our democratic system and the separation of powers doctrine (and hence the Australian Constitution) now being abrograted by the Howard Government?

How I would love to hear a response from our lords and masters.

2. By providing insufficient supporting evidence the prosecution has failed to have Haneef remanded.

3. There was therefore a choice made to withhold some incriminating evidence regarding Haneef.

4. This decision to withhold was justified on the grounds of “national security”.

This statement of the facts raises some very interesting and precise questions of fact:

1. Who made the decision to withhold? How much imput was there from Ruddock and his political advisors. What did Ruddock know about the facts and how did he know them?

2. Did Ruddock and Andrews know more facts about Haneef than the AFP and the government legal team?

3. If the answer to q. 2 is “yes”, then is this still the case?

4. If it is the case, then how does the Federal government justify its furtive approach to guarding Australia’s national security? Does withholding information constitute hampering the AFP in their task of protecting national security?

5. If the answer to q. 2 is “no”, then how did Ruddock know the answer is “no”?

6. A negative answer to q. 2 necessarily means that the Howard Ministry must accept some responsibility for Haneef’s bail hearing debacle, because if means that the Ministry and the AFP co-operated in being less than candid about evidence in a case that is vital to Australia’s national security.

The Government’s incompetency, slackness, and disingenuousness has endangered us all.

The magistrate did not maliciously overlook the Federal Government legislation at all. She did what the Framers of the Constitution specifically intended;
.
Hansard 17-3-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
QUOTE

Mr. DEAKIN.-
In this Constitution, although much is written much remains unwritten
END QUOTE

Hansard 31-1-1898 Constitution Convention Debates
Mr. WISE (New South Wales).-
QUOTE
It might be that a law passed by the Federal Parliament was so counter to the popular feeling of a particular state, and so calculated to injure the interests of that state, that it would become the duty of every citizen to exercise his practical power of nullification of that law by refusing to convict persons of offences against it. That is a means by which the public obtains a very striking opportunity of manifesting its condemnation of a law, and a method which has never been known to fail, if the law itself was originally unjust.
END QUOTE

QUOTE
Men do not make laws. They do but discover them. Laws must be justified by something more than the will of the majority. They must rest on the eternal foundation of righteousness. That state is most fortunate in its form of government which has the aptest instruments for the discovery of law.
END QUOTE
Calvin Coolidge, to the Massachusetts State Senate,
January 7, 1914

He pointed out, quite rightly, that if the prosecutor had made a mistake in his enunciation of the alleged facts of the case during the bail application, there would have been plenty of Federal police in the courtroom who could have corrected the record. And after the event, they could have raised it.

Either they did, and it was ignored, or they were happy to let the falsity stand.

Although incompetence is what one should always first assume in a case like this, one cannot help but wonder if here we’re looking at something far more sinister.

And I see that Andrews has refused to review the visa revocation, his spokeswoman saying, “The minister is not reviewing his decision to cancel the visa of Dr Haneef. Nothing that has been reported in the media alters his decision that was made based on information provided to him by the Australian Federal Police and is a broader range of information than was provided to the magistrate.”

Very conveniently, he doesn’t have to disclose the basis of his decision….

He thought the AFP reps should have corrected the counsel in court when they went with clearly incorrect facts about the sim card. The police were deceptive in implying that Haneef shared premises with suspects. Each had lived at a particular address, but at different periods. The police were either being deceptive, selective or misleading in implying that Haneef didn’t give them a satisfactory reason for suddenly leaving. His wife having a baby was good enough for his employer, but maybe he’s not on a Workchoice contract.

Any legal professionals able to add to it?

The general trend has been to grant more discretionary powers to the Executive without sufficient matching accountantablity (Immigration, Health, National security etc). They say they are “accountable at election time” but this is a ruse, and is offset by massive taxpayer funded Government PR that is being ramped up now.

Abbott was the only one who missed out on the “increased powers” during the RU486 debate.

Off topic – Ruddock claimed he couldn’t take action on Hicks because he thought “Guantanomo Bay was a foreign jurisdiction” – I wrote him and Howard a letter saying they should both resign due to incompetence as Guantanomo Bay is used by the US precisely because it is not a foreign jurisdiction – it is a legal limbo land outside of US law.

I think Paul sums up the Haneef case well.

Yes, mandatory detention and the concentration camps were started by Labor (Gerry Hand of the Socialist Left as I recall), and yes it is equally their disgrace too.

If Labor wins, I would expect them to revel in increased ministerial discretions and lack of accountability too – our democracy is being shifted by both major parties at both Federal and State levels towards something that is increasingly resembles a totalitarian state that detains people and children at their whim.

So look out if you ever went to a BBQ or dinner with an Iraqui doctor colleague who unintentionally assisted a terrorist by giving them a SIM card – you could dissappear from a couple of weeks of interrogation too, and your name and allegations about what you have been done would be all over the papers from the lips of the PM, Ministers and the Chief Commissioner of the Federal Police. You would have no right of reply.

But its OK if you love Big Brother.

I haven’t seen a positivism v. natural law stoush in ages! Very entertaining!