This one’s getting very long and taking too much time to load, so I’m closing comments here, OK?

Harry was having a well-justified little gloat at the discomfort the blathering liberal-Left commentariat. There is egg on the faces of those hyserical commenters who strove desperately to make out that the govts case was without foundation.

You and Harry can gloat all you like (and incidentally, that’s very revelatory of how seriously the right actually takes these issues - the claim is that they’re existential ones for “our way of life” etc. but actually they’re just partisan wedges). The evidence released by Andrews is perfectly susceptible of a benign interpretation, and in fact there’s nothing in it but “suspicion” to justify any belief that he did pose a danger to this country’s citizens. But if you’re happy with legislation that specifically denies natural justice and empowers suspicious Ministers, that’s alright I guess?

You are implying that the Minister’s actions are on a par with the totalitarian mind control of Big Brother.

No I’m not. I’m merely pointing out that you and Harry just parrot the government’s talking points.

I don’t believe that there is an answer yet to this question - why was it necessary for Andrews to cancel his visa when as a condition of bail he would have had to surrender his passport? And he could still be watched by the AFP.

Please enlighten me.

He was released when it became apparent that there were insufficient grounds for prosecuting him (ie, by the magistrate hearing the bail application).

I don’t think that’s technically correct, Lomandra, as the magistrate didn’t throw out the charges (as she could have).

I think it’s significant that Harry was briefly lost for words and could only blather on about “the deranged left�, etc, but now that the government has recovered its balance and issued some new diktats about how to understand the Haneef episode without committing thoughtcrime he’s happily celebrating the fact that we’re back at war with Eastasia.

Harry was having a well-justified little gloat at the discomfort the blathering liberal-Left commentariat. There is egg on the faces of those hyserical commenters who strove desperately to make out that the govts case was without foundation.

You are implying that the Minister’s actions are on a par with the totalitarian mind control of Big Brother. That is the kind of comment that turns ordinary members of the public right off and makes the Wets unsuitable for any kind of political power. Hence their decline.

The Andrews revelations are not “new diktats”. The AFP records show the minister had reasonable grounds for suspicion of terrorist conspiracy. Haneefs hasty flight consolidated those suspicions.

It is arguable whether ANdrews took his suspicions too far in revoking Haneefs visa. But everything related to suspicion of crime is arguable, as anyone who has had the misfortune to deal with lawyers knows all to well.

In any case, visas are not god-given rights. The minister has discretion and used it. Bad luck for Haneef but he should have sat tight instead of trying to flee the coop.

General community feeling is that we should err on the side of caution in terrorist matters, esp, with foreigners who have do not have full civil rights in this country. The minister is an elected official responsible to the community. He was doing his job, albeit a little zealously.

However, I think he should have been released as soon as it became clear that there were no grounds for prosecuting him, which should have been very early on.

It’s not like me to sit on the other side of the church from you, Mark, but it is worth pointing out that the standard for criminal prosecution is vastly different from the test applicable for a Minister for Immigration to assess whether a visa should be maintained.

He was released when it became apparent that there were insufficient grounds for prosecuting him (ie, by the magistrate hearing the bail application). It’s important not to confuse this with the powers of the Minister—however ill one might consider the legislative powers of the Minister to be.

Assuming we take Andrews’ latest statement at face value (a big assumption) the issues that remain are:

1. The conflict between the evidence obtained by the police and what was presented by the Crown Prosecutor to the magistrate in the bail application, a matter that raises serious questions about the procedural competence of both the AFP and the DPP;

2. Statements by Government ministers intruding into the investigative/judicial process, raising concerns about the separation of powers;

3. Whether the current laws give too much power to a politician, without adequate judicial oversight.

Mr Andrews and the Australian Federal Police had indicated the decision to cancel the visa had been made on basis of information not provided to the court.

If that sort of stuff is not put before the court then Andrews should resign on that point alone. Where is the point of gathering evidence and not presenting it to the court.

If all this stuff Andrews was raving on about tonight have any truth then why did he allow Haneef to leave the country with his permission. Another reason to sack the Minister I would suggest.

Two things:

(a) On the 7 30 report, part of the Solicitor-General’s advice which pointed out that the word “association” was so wide that it didn’t need to encompass awareness of criminality or criminal association was highlighted - in other words, Andrews could, under the Act, have basically decided Haneef was a person of bad character merely by virtue of his familial relationship;

(b) the crap about the “Western intellegentsia” is just that.

the Migration Act says the minister may cancel the visa of any person who has a substantial criminal record or who he suspects “has or has had an association with someone else, or with a group or organisation, whom the minister reasonably suspects has been or is involved in criminal conduct”.

I would suggest that those who argue Haneef’s associations are insufficient to disqualify him from entry into Australia are either careless of our security or motivated by political antagonism.

On balance, this is one of those no-scandal scandals where the stridency of some commentators only underlines their estrangement from the man and woman on the street.

Unfortunately, this estrangement reveals a pattern we have seen repeatedly since 9/11. It sometimes appears the Western intelligentsia does not have the stomach to go a single round in the fight against terrorism, but would rather we blamed ourselves.

Pretty clearly mark et al have badly over-reached in their criticisms. They should at least acknowledge that the govt had some reasonable grounds to arrest and detain Haneef.

Revoking his visa was arguable, but not what I would call a gross ministerial abuse of power.

Jack, yes, there were reasonable grounds to detain him. However, I think he should have been released as soon as it became clear that there were no grounds for prosecuting him, which should have been very early on.

He may also have known, or reasonably suspected that the AFP were on his tail. I don’t see that what Andrews has released adds anything to the grounds for revoking his visa. He’d have had to surrender his passport anyway as a condition of bail. There’s still no association made out other than the fact that he was related to the bombers.

You dont see because you are one-eyed opponent of Howard govts tough stance against potential trouble makers. Obviously a bomb will have to go off under some National Treasure before the liberal-Left take terrorism seriously.

A visa is not a universal human right. It is granted to persons of good character, at the discretion of the minister.

Haneef was not exactly forthcoming to the authorities about his dodgy connections. His hasty flight under false pretexts raised a question about his character.

The association was made between his communications with other relatives close to the bombers and his suspicious actions just after the bombing, through the IM record. That would raise alarm bells in any moderately sentient being.

Pretty clearly mark et al have badly over-reached in their criticisms. They should at least acknowledge that the govt had some reasonable grounds to arrest and detain Haneef.

Revoking his visa was arguable, but not what I would call a gross ministerial abuse of power.

http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/07/andrews-was-prudent-to-act-on-valid.html

These are the gutter trawling rats of Australian politics, bottom-feeding off fear, and more advanced political actors will do well to simply starve them of energy and attention.

Wouldnt last ten seconds in a court.

Its entirely consistent with two people concerned about an (innocent) association with criminals getting one of them caught up in a world of BS. Which, of course, is precisely what happened.

Not saying thats what the conversation means, of course, as I have no idea.

But this “evidence” wouldnt even get the Crown prosecutors past a committal hearing; and clearly they knew it.

The Haneef email text is highly suspicious but not enough by itself to sustain prosecution. However it is more than enough to warrant Haneef being expelled from the country and never allowed back.

The more hysterical elements on the Left now have egg all over their faces.

Harry Clarke stands tall: http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/07/andrews-was-prudent-to-act-on-valid.html