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.