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?)

2. Even more astonishing is Howard’s disingenuous claim that he cannot comment as he and his government have nothing to do with the Haneef matter, that it is all in the judicial arena, to be soerted out there. Who, then, I wonder, is this “Kevin Andrews” who claims to be Minister for DIC? Is he unconnected with the government? Has he not made a polticial, as opposed to judicial, decision about Haneef?

3. The actual charge agsint Haneef is ludicrous. It is nonsensical in legal terms.

“intentionally providing resources to a terrorist organisation consisting of persons including Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed, his cousins, being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation.�

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. So either the charge will have to be dropped or Haneef will have to remain in detention at least until the British trial, if there is one, is concluded before he can be tried here. The charge itself, presuming as it does the guilt of the two suspects in Britain, severely compromises their position.
What possibly can “being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation” mean? If you provide anything of any kind which can be regtarded as a “resource” (a meal, money, mobile phone, haircut, pharmaceuticals to anyone are you required to ensure that the recipient is not part of a terrorist organisation? How ought you do that (especially when you provide the resource a full year before the persons themselves may even have decided whether or not to be part of a terrorist organisation)? Ask them “before I provide this, are you a terorist or part of a terrorist organisation, or are you planning to be in the future, or might you conceivably be at some unspecifiable time in the future? Please sign this indemnity before I give you the ten dollars”? How can you be “not reckless” about the existence or otherwise of a terrorist organisation which has no judicial or political recognition?
This is apparently quite serious, because this is what it seems Haneef was expected to do – to satisfy hinmself a year before when he gave a phone/card to his cousin that his cousin was not or was not intending or might not be at some future time involved in some terrorist act as part of some sort of organisation (which it appears can be a group of two).
Sabeel, by the way, has not been charged with being a terrorist or part of a terrorist organisation but with withholding information, in contradiction of the AFP’s charge against Haneef.
The whole thing is a legal nonsense.

Hey, Haneef! Enjoying the show from your comfy little cell? I bet.

If the legal system was amended by the opinions of the average citizen there would be stocks in every main street, a well used lash, and terrorism suspects would quite possibly be fed to sharks in Sydney acquarium.

And this state of affairs would last precisley as long as it took Joe six pack to work out that the laws would in the end, be used, against him and his mates. It’s always the way. That’s where authoritarian populists come unstuck. It’s all good, until the one time when you f**k up, and the object of the lovely scam known as ‘ the campaign for common sense and the defence of the mainstream’, strikes at the heart of some other popular value, one not quite so beloved of the real elites, that seek to govern in the name of the ‘common man’. Then all hell breaks loose.

That’s what is happening now. Watch this space.

Terrific. Once completely unsubstantiated accusations resulted in senseless murder, you’d final have given jihadists a reason to launch a terrorist attack in Australia.

I do wonder what level of administrative incompetence supporters of the Coalition’s utter cock-up are willing to accept at this late stage. Their desperation to register themselves on the international map of over-reaction is quite embarrassing. One day, they’re going to push around the wrong innocent person, and who’ll wear the blow-back?

Even a quite straightforward and sensible man like Mick Keelty is going to be soiled by the fall-out from this one. Which is a shame, because he’s managed to distinguish himself despite having to operate side-by-side with b-grade acts like Downer, Ruddock and Howard.

To quote Waleed Aly this morning, “Haneef may well be guilty of something. But even so, the government’s intervention….is a strategic blunder.”

He’s pretty well nailed it there.

It may well be worth saying less, but giving what one says a lot more consideration. See you at the aquarium SATP. I’ll be wearing the red carnation.

In Britain, a source close to the investigation confirmed the SIM card was found in Liverpool, and said the Australian police were considered a laughing stock by Britain’s Metropolitan Police for allowing “such a major cock-up” to happen. “Australian police have got their wires crossed. This is very embarrassing for them. The police here are laughing at the Australian police, saying, ‘What on earth have they done?’ [Haneef] is clearly more of a political case than a police case.”

The lawyers are weak on political science

Says Mr Kelly who apparently wouldn’t recognise a political trial if he tripped over one. What lawyers and judges do rather well, more often than not, is SMELL a RAT, in a prosecution case and otherwise, in the legislation when it’s wearing jackboots.

Now I’m wondering what the political fallout will bring–would Joe Sixpack in the ‘burbs fall for even more draconian legislation such as elimination of all bail in terrorist cases? Somehow I doubt it.

Extraordinary times call for extraordinary responses

That’s the problem right there, the unquestioning acceptance of the Howard/Bush line that these are ‘extraordinary times’, while in other contexts they assure us gravely that the War on Terror will go on for generations. These are not extraordinary times and efforts by authoritarian people to use that argument as a ruse to increase the powers of the state need to be resisted.

All liberal democrats regardless of party should be pressing for the repeal of the so-called ‘anti-terrorism’ laws that free the executive government from challenge by an independent judiciary. If we’ve learnt anything at all about governance over the centuries it’s that the executive always wants to get more power and when they get it they always misuse it sooner or later.

There’s a body of thought within the blogosphere that says the problem with the Haneef affair is not the laws but the malicious way Howard’s mob have applied them. That’s bullshit, designed to excuse the Labor Party’s craven refusal to change the laws if they win government. The problem is not the way the laws have been applied, it’s the nature of the laws themselves.

The strangest silence has come from some who call themselves libertarians. It seems their commitment to individual freedom starts and finishes in the economic dimension. When it comes to the most fundamental freedom a person can have, namely liberty of movement, they seem prepared to condone authoritarian government if the alternative is to have to agree with the despised social progressives. Hypocritical wankers.

The lawyers are weak on political science. Influenced by the feeble and defective analysis of Australian governance, they actually believe the Howard Government has suppressed dissent, corrupted the political system and destroyed accountability, and they see themselves as the last line of defence.

Well one thing is certainly clear Kelly, the Government Gazette will never be the last line of defence. I don’t think a ‘journalist’ of your experience should be sneering at such basic democratic principles being trampled on by a Government.