So I’d suggest continuing the discussion on the facts of the case on the new thread.

It would appear that Haneef is not to have the opportunity to clear his name – with all the ramifications that has for his future life. Does anyone else have sick feeling in their stomach?

That’s the problem right there, the unquestioning acceptance of the Howard/Bush line that these are ‘extraordinary times’,

Fair cop. It was an ‘reckless’ turn of phrase. ‘Twould have been better if I had qualified it by ‘Even if you believe …’

On reflection, at some subconscious level, I’ve bought the whole idea of ‘a war on terror.’

Doh!

steve at the pub on 21 July 2007 at 3:57 am:

“My reasons for not using torture are not because I sympathise with the enemy, and am squeamish about causing distress to some Mohamed Atta type, but that information gained from torture can be of… er.. variable accuracy. More subtle methods of extracting information can usually produce better results.

But, if it is likely to work, particulary in a situation where time is of the essence, then torture should be considered.

I wouldn’t say it is stupid David, just mostly not called for. But I would NEVER rule it out, because the knowledge that it is not ruled out will certainly assist with putting the wind up captives.”

Well OK. You would never rule it out.

But how could you judge that time was not of the essence when Haneef was first taken in? The FBI weren’t looking for terrorists just before 9/11 regarding 9/11. No-one was searching for the Bali bombers prior to their attack. In both those instances there were people, that if arrested, had information about those attacks.

When he was first detained, how could you be certain there was no imminent attack on Australian soil and Haneef did not have information on it.

The whole idea is that the authorities don’t know about the attack. Wouldn’t the idea be if torture has any value to just torture everyone that gets detained and pass on the information.

Or is your thinking that the next time the terrorists plan a major attack the authorities will know all about it and arrest the leaders and torture information out of them that they already know?

Terrorists don’t tell you what they are going to do. All Australian authorities knew was that Haneef may be a part of a terror network. No-one could have been more appropraite to torure in this brave new world of yours than Haneef at the time of his arrest. Its no good with 20/20 hindsight to say that the good doctor is probably totally innocent. At the time he had to be a terror suspect because of his connection.

Why all this squeamish backpedalling?

Torture supporters should explain their theory in a more detailed, down-to-earth, practical way.

No terrorist organisation has yet been established as fact by the British police. The suspects will have to be tried and convicted in the UK to establish that.

Not necessarily Roger M. If the “organisation” is already listed, that’s a slam dunk. If there is no listing, (as in Haneef’s case we can safely assume) a court has under the Commonwealth’s Criminal Code, a statutory definition which it can apply, ad hoc, and seemingly retrospectively.

It’s a dog’s breakfast and it’s here, scroll down to section 102:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/cca1995115/sch1.html

terrorist organisation means:

(a) an organisation that is directly or indirectly engaged in, preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act occurs); or

(b) an organisation that is specified by the regulations for the purposes of this paragraph (see subsections (2), (3) and (4)).

(Am i warm?)