The previous Haneef thread is getting long, so let’s summarise today’s news:
- The UK police were the source of the misinformation about the location where Haneef’s old SIM card was found (scratch one of the perceived AFP stuffups, although it still seems odd that during his 12 days being interrogated no-one spotted the error as they were reviewing the British evidence).
- The secret evidence against Haneef that Andrews relied upon for his visa revocation decision was, at least in part, an alleged chatroom conversation with his brother two days after the car-bombing at Glasgow airport, which hardly seems to demonstrate conclusively prior knowledge of the plot.
- The phrases contained in the chatroom conversation as reported by Andrews seem suspicious although also open to innocent explanation (fear not guilt), but certainly do cast doubt on Haneef’s claim that his trip to India had nothing to do with the Glasgow bombing.
So, it was the UK police’s bungling which led to the charges regarding the SIM card collapsing. But what about the rest of the case against Haneef? To my eye Kevin Andrews wants to have his cake and eat it too.
If these chatroom conversations are sufficiently credible evidence of conspiracy to revoke his visa, then why was Haneef allowed to leave the country without conspiracy charges being laid? If these chatroom conversations are not sufficiently credible evidence upon which to lay charges of conspiracy, then why is Haneef’s visa not being reinstated?
Well, given the demonstrable form they have in selective leaking (which prompted Keim to leak the whole interivew) I think Ill wait to see the full text, thanks Kevbot.
Having said that - if this IS the selective leak - the rest must be rather benign.
Anyway, larger points are more worthy of discussion:
a. Why is this government so hot on the politics of national security, and so woefully incompetent on the actual policing and prosecution?
b. Why wasnt this, and any other allegedly relevant evidence adduced at court? WHy was he then let go? Beattie is right. This IS keystone cops.
c. Why would any voter in their right mind want these a drongo like Andrews on the front line? The dude is clearly more interested in wedging the ALP than doing his job.
Bring on a better government.
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. It seems that the most obvious interpretation is that he and his family were aware that he could get caught up in a web by virtue of the SIM card, and that he might have found it prudent to leave the country. It doesn’t show that he was associated in a criminal sense with his cousins, just that he was aware of the sort of net that was likely to be cast. Rightly, as it turned out. And it doesn’t exclude a primary reason for his departure being to see his daughter.
The Act specifically denies natural justice, and as pointed out by the Solicitor-General, doesn’t need a criminal association or knowledge of criminality to be made out, just an association.
Haneef it seems is guilty of having relatives.
We don’t need to paint his behaviour either as perfectly rational (the whole thing about whether or not he applied for leave or not implies indecision to me) and nor do we have to suggest he’s some sort of angel from heaven. What we can say on the basis of the information the public now have is that there’s very little basis for the government’s attempt to smear him and destroy his character and livelihood.
I don’t believe that there is an answer from the government and their talking points monkeys 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.
TigTog - your last para. puts the essence -the cherry-picked chatroom conversation, after Glasgow. If it is as water tight as Androids claimed, why let him leave?
Or is it boo-hissing at the departing problem?
He’s gone, he won’t be allowed back if Androids has owt to do with it (he doesn’t of course, being just an arse with ears, given his script by…others).
In the meantime the search goes on for another wedge shaped rabbit for the Rodent.
The evidence Andrews didn’t release was because it could be valuable in ongoing investigations. Does is follow that the nonsense he issued tonight was the trash that was not going to be helpful in ongoing investigations?
tigtog,
What about the situation where the evidence is sufficient to give rise to legitimate concern as to his intentions but not enough to be likely to convict? Personally, if I were a Minister in this situation I would err on the side of caution.
Look at it from the Minister’s point of view - worst possible downside, he lets a terrorist into the country, with the attendant possible horrors. Best possible upside - Queensland gets one more doctor.
Purely from his point of view, he must err on the side of caution and revoke the visa.
I am not saying this is the right, or just, outcome - but to me it is the only logical one.
Anyone who says anything OTHER than this looks VERY suspicious for Haneef, well they got real cognitive problems.
And of course we don’t know the full context, just one piece of info released as a standalone indictment, nice work if you can get it. I would like the hospital where Haneef worked to give us their view as to the timing and conversations. Has anyone asked them?
Andrew, that seems a terribly confused comment as to the timing of events.
But Haneef had to surrender his passport as a condition of bail. He could be watched by the AFP. The only effect of the decision was to deny him bail and keep him incarcerated.
He wasn’t seeking to enter the country, he was here, and he’d been charged with offences. He had no option to leave the country for that reason.
Steve says:
“If that sort of stuff is not put before the court then Andrews should resign on that point alone. ”
You must be a congenital idiot. The Minister doesn’t decide what evidence gets put before the court.
It is important for the minister to indicate whether the words he quoted are a translation from the likely hindi. I find it hard to imagine that the brothers would have spoken via chatroom, in english. In that case, it would be appropriate that he released the original transcript, in native language, for fair perusal.
Just for a start.
That my friend is officially known as wedge politics. Although it is useless rubbish superfluous to our investigations, we will throw it out to the world knowing the RWDB’s will run the story for us and instill fear in anybody genuinely concerned about the state of the world..
Correction my friend, it is called “commonsense”.
andrew’s interference and prejudicial leaks from the AFP and comments by ruddock/howard etc stuffed up this process from the beginning. like hicks, it has nothing to do with haneef’s guilt or innocence.
jack & SATP etc,
what most of us ’supposed liberal/left’ cleary see, is that executive interference is actually hampering good policing and forensic investigation, and any hope of a normal judicial process. AND even worse it is also potentially creating problems within our local muslim population, who see themselves as being victimised by a system rigged against them.
haneef should have just remained in australia after being bailed, and any case should have been brought to court and tested in that place alone. not in the media by AG/PM, nor prejudiced by the Immigration Minister cancelling his visa. he had already surrendered his passport!!
haneef clearly wasn’t a danger to the country after he had been charged, in fact, the AFP should have welcomed his release, so they could monitor his post-arrest behaviour for any evidence of wrong-doing, as police do with all suspects on bail for serious crimes.
as most LPers have argued - his questioning was entirely legitimate given the circumstances and his family connections to the Glasgow bombings. everything after - has been a major cock-up.
I’ll repeat what I said, satp. The conversation quoted by Andrews proves nothing other than the fact that Haneef knew that he might be caught up in the sort of stuff he did get caught up in because of the connection with his cousins. All the overlay of “suspicion” says something about the cognitive capacity of those who are doing the suspecting. The reason it wasn’t presented to the court is obviously that in terms of legal evidentiary standards, it would have been laughed out of court.
And I’d still like to hear how Andrews’ action made the community “safer” since Haneef had been charged with an offence by this stage and couldn’t leave the country no matter what decision Andrews made.
“Why wasnt this, and any other allegedly relevant evidence adduced at court?”
If this was the killer evidence that Haneef was suss, shouldn’t it have been brought before the magistrate at the bail hearing?
“he lets a terrorist into the country”
He was already in the country, charged with a serious crime and the bail conditions would have kept him on a tight leash.
“evidence not enough to be likely to convict”
Then why was he charged?
One of you said:
“Pretty clearly mark et al have badly over-reached in their criticisms.”
oh geez, one nebulous conversation which indicates nothing much at all - and you are launching the “I told you so” - and at this early stage in Minister Andrew’s secret information striptease? You are wrecking the show and we are not even at the denoument - that bit when the Minister reveals further “evidence” in the coming days/weeks/months. We have yet to hear of certain strange and incongruent “conversations” (no doubt, very soon to become less super secret than they are tonight) between the terrorists and Haneef. Cant you save the “egg on face”, hysterical left wing accusatory hyperbole, you lefties are out of your cottonpickin’ minds, festivus pole shaking outrage, whateveritisyoudo until then Jack and Mel and Satp?
Mark, I stand by what I said. Don’t do too much harm to your reputation by keeping on pushing the line you have been.
This is not about evidence, or beyond reasonable doubt or anything like it.
It may turn out to be nothing, but so far it sure does not look good for Haneef. From the information which is currently to hand, Haneef has some explaining to do.
Tigtog, and others here: in your arguments that “well, if the secret evidence was that bad, why did the Minister let him go?” you are continually ignoring the issue of the wildly different tests as to what evidence you need to run a criminal case, and what evidence a Minister can use to decide to revoke a visa.
And for those who think this conversation is not conclusive: remember that this does not comprise the whole of the evidence the Minister relied on.
However, given the nature of the charge the police laid, isn’t it safe to assume that the evidence, including the secret evidence yet to be revealed, was still not going to be enough to found a criminal charge?
However, I don’t see that Australia has an obligation to keep a non-citizen here in circumstances where the government has sufficient evidence to have reasonable suspicions about his connection to terrorists, yet not enough to charge with a criminal offence.
We don’t have to keep such people waiting to see if they will commit an offence or not, surely. Yet that seems to be exactly the position Mark and others are arguing for.
If further investigations reveal an actual offence, then doesn’t England and Australia have extradition agreements with India?
And by the way, the shrillness of some of Mark’s comments in the previous thread which moved here indicate to me that he can see that he may be on what looks like the losing side of the public debate over the validity of the revocation decision.
Define “shrill”, Steve. I suspect it’s in the eye of the beholder.
Mark on 31 July 2007 at 9:01 pm
It takes some chutzpah to convert the hysteria whipped up by Howard-hostile commenters over alleged violations of Haneefs civil rights into a “partisan wedge” by the govt.
I dont care a fig about the political implications for the LN/P. I just think that the Wets have whipped themselves up into a lather of moral indignation over this issue and come acropper, as usual. There is no need to create “wedges” when Wets create a rod for their own back.
marks says:
Oh maek, dont play the civil rights violin so mournfully, my eyes are misting up with tears. A visa ia not a natural right, therefore revoking it is not a violation of natural justice. Haneef cannot lose a right that he does not have in the first place. All this cant about rights is just nonsense on stilts, as Bentham would say.
Haneef’s connections were suspicious, his communications were suspicioua and his actions were suspicious. Plenty of room for malign interpretations there. Mark has ducked all these key points, particularly the one about hasty flight.
I am satisfied that the minister did not abuse his powers in revoking the visa. It sends a message to those who consort with trouble makers: be on your best behaviour or else. Haneef can get it back when the ALP win office,
All this stuff about his reputation being trashed and livelihood ruined is balderdash. He will probably return to AUS and receive a heroes welcome. He has already been canonised as a secular saint.
mark says:
No, you are wrong. We are citing AFP records. Or are they just govt stooges too?
Politically, this is ‘amateur hour’. Anyone who throws this ’spin’ into the ring and is not available for a serious interview has about as much credibility as SATP.
We have not seen any transcript. All we have is Andrews’ selective version of what happened. Please.
But if Andrews believes that Haneef is, or was supporting terrorists, then why did he allow Haneef to leave?
Maybe somewhere down the track, Andrews might be charged with recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation. After all he did allow him to leave. And he paid for his ticket.
But I am not sure about whether he gave him a SIM card.
WPD, don’t make too big a fool of yourself.
My credibility has never been in doubt, not in my lifetime.
The problem with dealing with those here who are supporting the attacks on Andrews and the Government is that they are dishonest. You know the truth but your stupid pride won’t admit it.
It wouldn’t matter what information was presented to Andrews it would spoil your fun and your idiotic intrigues to have the graciousness to admit you were wrong. Totally wrong.
Of course the information was not conclusive - indeed it does seem to have turned out to be wrong. But at the time it was reasonable to hold suspicions and to check them out.
The UK police were the source of the misinformation so all the crap about political intrigues, wedge politics and so on goes out the window. It probably was a mistake but one with very limited costs.
As was clear from the start Andrews had the responsibility under the Migration Act to cancel Haneef’s visa. He took appropriate action and the explanation he gave Kevin Rudd was appropriately accepted by him.
What always gets me is the view of human nature you guys take. It must reflect your own values. You must assume other people act and think as you do. Not just Liberal politicians but Kevin Rudd, Mick Kelty the lot.
Don’t worry about it Mark & Co I am sure that next week you can come up with a new hysterical fantasy. But you only bring discredit upon yourselves with this appalling behaviour.
Andrews cites this chat-room conversation as evidence supporting a suspicion that Haneef had prior knowledge of the Glasgow attack, then quite deliberately quotes an excerpt from the conversation that provides evidence of the opposite. His brother says to him that these cousins seem to have had something to do with the Glasgow affair. This shows that at least the brother didn’t think Haneef had any prior knowledge of the affair. He’s telling Haneef something he thinks he might not know.
I’m trying to work out how anything so far released could possibly raise suspicion of prior knowledge. Maybe he has other top-secret info? Or maybe Andrews is too dumb to make reasonable decisions on the basis of evidence before him. I think he should resign and take up some occupation that requires less headwork.
Only in your own mind SATP.
Peter Russo, Haneef’s lawyer, has justed suggested on SBS that this information released by Andrews is not part of the secret brief of evidence by which the Minister made his decision but has been around and was available for weeks. He’s recycling. He also asserts that the Minister should have released the entire transcript of the interview where Haneef provides explanations, so that the public can make up their own mind.
I’d stick to thinking about organisms, Harry. You claim that others have no credibility but you’re the one suspending any judgement on this matter and putting your entire faith and trust in whatever the government says.
Yep.
This is the critical issue.
Even SATP, Strocchi and their fellow claqueurs of executive tyranny acknowledge that the information released by Andrews had nothing to do with intelligence gathering.
This material was in the possession of the Crown Solicitor. It could have been submitted to the magistrate in support of a denial of bail to Haneef. Yet it is a notorious fact that the Crown did no such thing. Here is proof positive of what qualified legal practitioners think about the threadbare rationalisations cobbled together by Kevin Andrews.
And do SATP, Jack Strocchi and other claqueurs of executive tyranny think that all of this is “suspicious”?
Of course they do! That’s how persons with unhealthy fixations always think.
OK Mark:
That’s “shrill”. Oh, and the phrase “the government and its talking points monkeys” is pure ad hominem.
“why was Haneef allowed to leave the country without conspiracy charges being laid?” - because the criminal justice system, in particular the rules of evidence and the requirement to prove beyond a reasonable doubt are inadequate tools for prosecuting terrorist suspects.
The Minister has made the correct decision.
I’d like to hear if Kruddie disagrees.
I doubt it.
Well, the larger point is made well by Bartlett. We either live in a society governed by rule of law (which incidentally, still allows suspects to be surveilled 24/7, followed, charged, prosecuted etc) - or we live in one where fates are determined on judicially unreviewable, unaccountable executive order.
Now, Haneef may attract little sympathy. Whatevs. The point is that what Andrews is lawfully entitled to do under our Migration Act(administratively detain a person without charge, without putting them before a court, for an indefinite period, without even having to even explain why) is precisely what defines regimes like Mugabe, Hussein, and other tinpot authoritarian creeps.
That he can do it after a court grants bail merely highlights the potential for abuse of executive power.
Now - we limit that abuse of power to non-citizens, yes, and they dont. Granted. Thats a key difference.
But for how long? And how long to other governments start doing it to us, on tourist, or working visas?
Anyway - we knew all this. Migration Act needs reform by next government.
I should add - I have far less problem with Andrew’s actual decision to revokie his visa than I do about his power to keep someone like Haneef in a detention centre, forever, without charge.
Steve, I was merely having a go at Mr Strocchi. I’m sure he doesn’t take it to heart. Perhaps “talking points monkeys” is harsh, and I withdraw it. But there are some here who are slavishly defending the government talking point by talking point. Casey makes the point that Russo suggested that the Minister should release Haneef’s response to these allegations based on the chatroom conversation. That seems eminently fair. But very few of those defending Andrews’ opinion seem to have taken any cognisance whatever of the fact that there is a more obvious interpretation of the conversation than the terrorist one, and of the fact that his own response may be relevant. But that would be to accord him natural justice, which we’ve been told is not on in these circumstances.
If I was the police prosecutor, that chatroom conversation would have satisfied me that Haneef was a “flight risk” and I would have opposed bail vigorously.
Probably in vain, as the magistrate who made the decision doesn’t always make decisions which reflect favourbably upon the office she holds.
Assuming this latest development is the real mccoy, I am not comfortable that Haneef was allowed to leave the country, & thus put himself beyond the reach of investigators.
But, there is no such thing.
So why has Andrews indulged in another selective information leak? Clearly, he has been under a lot of pressure. Given the precedent of numerous Govt sanctioned (e.g. AFP) leaks to date, another one wouldn’t bother them.
Maybe the heat got too much before they could spring the wedge trap on Rudd, who had deftly avoided it anyway? Is this more to this game to come? Looks like it to me.
Other posts have remarked on how strange it is that this “new evidence” was not part of the original charge. I wonder about this too.
Andrews had enough “evidence” to deport someone suspected of supporting (or talking to) terrorists, yet he lets him loose on his last night then lets him leave the country. So much for our tough new laws. This will be a perennial problem with Executive taking on the role of judiciary (judge, jury and commentator).
At least there seems to be now at one check used, albiet optional - with the solicitor-general.
Still more questions than answers.
This is a very shabby performance from the government - next time we may suffer from the “boy who cried wolf” syndrome. They should stick to what they are good at - looking after the coal industry and squeezing first home buyers out of the market.
I might also add that the Russo seemed quite aggrieved that the Fed Police have not provided Haneef’s defence team with the transcript of that interview either, so that Haneef’s defence was also unable to provide accurate details of that interview.
But SATP, this evidence was never forwarded in court. The magistrate that you seem to have some kind of set against was never given an opportunity to show how incompetent you allege her to be.
Was was the result of incompetence on the part of the Crown?
OR
Do you think that this was some kind of conspiracy of silence by the Crown Prosecutors?
Choose one. There are no other explanations.
SATP, can you point me to a transcript of that conversation? Or are you relying on a particular and peculiar precis as given by Minister Andrews?
BTW, I am now well past by bedtime, but I have to see whether Andrews will front Lateline.
The snippet released by Andrews may indicate something sinister or perhaps it’s simply a discussion of how to avoid some expected media attention. The only thing I get is that he didn’t seem to realise he was being watched.
Really? For me I am further convinced by this release that Haneef did not have prior knowledge of the act. From the release:
There is absolutely no reason why his brother would be telling the circumstances of the event if Haneef already knew all about it.
Seems the police have only information after the event. Exactly what you would expect in this situation. If your second cousin had tried to blow up an airport you can bet all the relo’s from all over the world would be calling each other to figure out what was happening and hand out advice.
Show the prior knowledge and then you have a case.
The erstwhile ‘defenders of our freedoms’ are yet again prepared to surrender our freedoms at the first hint of a terrorist.
Fight terrorism - hoist the white flag!
There would seem to be little chance of Haneef having is visa restored.
JohnF, it should be kept in mind that Haneef & his clan are highly educated & world travelled.
Unlikely if guilty, that they would, either in open chat or on an open phone line, actually use phrases such as “Allah be praised, our cousins have struck a blow against the infidel English/Scottish unbelievers!”
If the two brothers used SMS type shorthand in either Hindi or Urdu in their chat room conversation then any attempts to translate as to the true intent of the interaction between the brothers would be fraught with difficulty in regard to accuracy of translation and would therefore be meaningless as far as reliability of intent IMHO.
“(Mr Andrews) has led the Australian public to believe that this is the secret information. It is hardly secret information if it was put to my client in the second record of interview,� Mr Russo told Southern Cross Broadcasting from India.
“And therefore, the Director of Public Prosecutions would have had access to that when they were making their judgment call (to drop the case). “
SATP, the absence of evidence is evidence? That’s a bit Rumsfeldian isn’t it?
“Haneef & his clan are highly educated & world travelled.”
Would highly educated terrorists leave evidence of incriminating chat room chat on their hard drive that the rozzers could seize at any moment?
The worst possible construction of all this is that Haneef’s brother said to the doctor something to the effect, “that idiot cousin of ours you gave your SIM card to might really have landed you in it. You better get back here toute suite”.
Which just goes to show that you can choose your friends but not your relatives.
But it doesn’t show that Haneef is a terrorist, a fellow traveller of terrorists or a consorter with terrorists.
Surely it’s obvious that the reason the evidence wasn’t produced in court is that the full context deprives it of probative value.
The DPP, as Katz has pointed out, had all this stuff. Presumably the AFP, since it produced it for Andrews, was keenly pointing to it in its dealings with the DPP. The trouble is that if it were to be produced in court, then the defence would also have to be given access to it, since that’s how the legal system works - even, to the disappointment of Howard and his henchmen, in terrrism cases. (BTW in my view the charge they did proceed with probably would have stuck legally, since the terrrism laws are so widely drafted and vague that a non-criminal association may well have constituted the planks of the offence. Sadly for the government, this was never tested because the case had collapsed politically - the Australian public, or more precisely even the Liberal heartland, wasn’t ready to accept that an innocent association could render a person liable for criminal penalties.)
At any event, if the evidence had been produced in the bail hearing, the defence would have been granted access to it and time to look at it in context, then make submissions on it. The DPP would not produce evidence that the defence could explode - lawyers and public servants fear above all else being made fools of in public. Of course, the evidence they did in fact produce turned out to have been fitted with a self-destructing device, but the DPP would have relied on the AFP to have got the basic facts right - the DPP doesn’t gather the evidence, they just assess it and produce it in court bearing in mind that the defence is entitled to receive exculpatory evidence that they possess. So, what gets produced in court by the prosecution is the hard facts that the defence has no obvious answer to - if this material produced by Andrews had any probative value in terms of casting Haneef’s bail application in a bad light, it would undoubtedly have been produced. The fact it wasn’t tells us all we need to know about its value.
Of course, the immigration system doesn’t work that way, and Andrews would neither need nor want to know anything about exculpatory context, and the person the subject of adverse orders has no natural (or indeed any other sort of) justice rights to know what is being held against them. Indeed, as the charade of producing the Solicitor General’s opinion shows and as Quiggin inter alia has pointed out, indefinite immigration detention is a completely arbitrary power of the sort that would have been familiar to habitues of the Court of Star Chamber.
Given that they are highly educated if they were guilty and knew of the events they would not be discussing how to handle it after it happened.
The whole panic like behaviour from Haneef and family was a mistaken belief that his SIM was involved in the bombing.
There is definitely confusion in here between the standard of evidence required to guarantee a conviction in a court of law, and the grounds for revoking a visa.
If this is deliberate it is likely a face saving exercise by some who would sink the country rather than admit having backed the wrong horse, or it is obtuseness as a discussion ploy.
If this confusion is real, then a few people are very much out of their depth.
I can only agree.
Or else what’s being argued is the contention that such a double standard is exactly the core of the broad unease with Andrews’ actions.
[b]The most interesting thing is, is if this was any other government except the Howard government we would not have too many issues with what has happened. However watching this being played out as a vote buying exercise and, our previous experience with government lies and tricky deeds [Tampa, Hicks, Baby Overboard, AWB bribes etc] we are left in considerable doubt about anything the govt says or does on this. This in itself is a condemnation on the integrity of the Howard govt.[/b]
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22163726-601,00.html
Andrews releases part of the ’secret’ information that the AFP says he is allowed to, and suggests that it implies;
1. that Haneef’s reason for leaving was not the birth of his child but because of the trouble in the UK
2. that it implies the possibility of foreknowledge of the UK events.
Now the problem we have here is that the purpose of this information was to exonerate Andrews decision thus it must be viewed critically since we know that the government has a habit of lying to the public and giving misinformation, most especially at election times.
This could just as well be a manipulated Chat Room message to create the sense of suspicsion or it could be genuine - there is no way we can really know without an independent examination of the data.
[b]1.[/b] The most obvious strangeness of the Chat Room conversation is the concern expressed about the leave thus:
“have you got permission to leave work?” and “tell them you have a newborn daughter”. Now if you were immediately fleeing the country why on earth would you worry about such things? Simply leave when you have your ticket. Call in sick. Why bother to make up a story - it seems quite odd. So why is this seemingly irrelevant information part of a ‘flee’ the country story? SO was this an insertion into the email because it reflected what Haneef had done, put in a leave application?
“He did not apply for leave from the hospital when he went to work at the hospital on the Monday morning and it was not until after he received two telephone calls - one from India - having been told in both calls that there was an issue about his SIM card, that he applied for leave that afternoon from the hospital,”
[b]2.[/b] Now we know Haneef apparently tried to phone the police in the UK twice because he had been told that his old SIM card was an issue there, being found in Liverpool with his cousin.
[b]3.[/b] “The brother added that ‘auntie’ told him that brother Kafeel used it, he’s in some sort of project over there,” “Mr Andrews said, in a reference to UK bombing accused Kafeel Ahmed.” This implies that they did NOT have prior knowledge of anything ie ’some sort of project’. Their real concern was that Kafeel had done something wrong and had in the past used the SIM card. Thus the concern of this conversation is a bad person using your card would reflect on you and implicate you. Quite understandable.
So it appears we can make an innocent scenario out of this along the lines Haneef has given in evidence:
a) A cousin recieves a SMS from his cousin telling him to check his email. At some stage he checks his email and finds it to be a Will.
i) at the same time of checking the email or after? - there is the attempted bombing in the UK
ii) the police check on relatives of the bombers and find a cousin in Liverpool
iii) they find the SIM card held by the cousin and find it to be Haneef’s
iv) the police charge the cousin on with-holding information - saying he should have realised the
SMS/e-mail meant his cousin was going to do some terrorist event.
iv) the cousin rings his family in India to tell the family about what the cousins had done and about the SIM
card. He or someone else also rings Haneef telling him that the police are charging him but found his SIM
card. And no doubt suggesting he should come home.
v) the family in India rings Haneef concerned as well with regard the cousins activity and also about the SIM
card. No doubt telling him he better come home.
vi) he has a Chat room conversation about leaving for India.
vii) he boards a plane and gets arrested
viii) he is released on bail
ix) his visa is cancelled
I suggest this is fairly close to the chain of events.
There are some things I dont understand
1. Why worry about the reason for leave if your fleeing the country - it doesnt make sense
2. The cousin in the UK was let out on bail, not charged with connection to the plot - his actions were hardly
suspicious. If he had known about the plot he would not have needed the SMS about the Will? And what does it
mean anyway?
3. The UK police were/are not interested in Haneef and barely mentioned him in the UK interrogations, but if
that email was genuine wouldn’t they be interested him based on the full email?
4. If that email is entirely accurate in its entirity why wasnt it presented as evidence? Why wasnt it released
earlier.
5. There is nothing secret about this email atg all, no reason to keep it secret at all. Why the hoo-haa about
releasing it?
FINALLY:
“And secondly, the AFP consider Dr Haneef’s attempted urgent departure from Australia on a one-way ticket for a purpose which appears to be a false pretext to be highly suspicious and may reflect Haneef’s awareness of the conspiracy to plan and prepare the acts of terrorism in London and Glasgow.”
Now I agree that it does appear suspicious and that the AFP rightly held Haneef in custody while they investigated. But it certainly does not infer prior knowledge of the UK plots at all and the UK police didn’t say that of the cousin they released on bail - so how could it be inferred here?
The plausible and logical reason for actions of Haneef can be thus:
Mr Haneef’s 2nd cousins make an attempt at bombing. All hell breaks loose. Haneefs cousing in Liverpool is questioned and they find Haneefs old SIM card there. They take an interest in the SIM card. Family ring India and also Haneef telling him what the cousins had done and that his SIM card is being mentioned and in fact Kafeel had used the phone in the past - So he better return to India quickly since he will be implicated. Haneef trys to ring the police in the UK twice about the SIM card. Haneef’s family in India ring Haneef and tell him to come home quick because of the SIM card and being a relative - because it doesnt look good.
You are related to someone who has just attempted a bomb attack and also your old SIM card is with one of the relatives and, they had arrested briefly and released on bail, your other cousin. You get 2 phone calls telling you about the SIM cards implication and no doubt to come home quick. You talk on Chat - and confirm you leaving today. [no need to talk about excuses for leave]. When the police arrest you - of course you make an excuse like the one given - your not going to say ‘I am running away because my cousins bombed somthing in the UK’.
Now if the email is entirely accurate the conversation showing that getting leave was a concern is hardly the action of someone fleeing. Rather it implies taking leave because you intend to come back, when the trouble blows over. You would not consider doing this if you had any connection with the events.
So this secret evidence doesn’t quite implicate Haneef the way stated and, the email seems a bit odd in its content. Is this the whole of the email, has it been sexied up, are their other emails that give a better context, is the email mostly invention. Unfortunately knowing the government as we do any of the above is possible. We hope for more leaking and more forensic examination and discussions by media, experts and legal teams before we can draw any conclusions. [b]It was hardly secret information though which thus gives me some grave doubts.[/b]
So it will be interesting to see further inforamtion and forensic examination and discussion.
There is a big lesson in this - Government should not be involved in the process at all because it undermines the security services; the Government in making this a political election vote buying affair has turned it into a dogs breakfast- the governments role messing this up [the running press releases , politicing etc ] should be reviewed.
The government should be taken to task for messing this up and making a mokery of the laws.
Andrews was just on Lateline.
His closing statement was something like: “The subsequent information, some of which I released today, it wasn’t information I relied on, only served to confirm my suspicions”.
I find this quite telling. It’s very similar to Andrews claim that Haneef’s “sudden departure” after Andrews handed him his passport and a plane ticket “only heightens my suspicions”.
Another thing Andrews found suspicious was Haneef’s decision to start holding press conferences in India, but not hold any in Australia. This is quite ridiculous. It was my understanding that Andrew’s department was doing its best to prevent contact between Haneef and the press, not just in Australia, but also even on the plane to India, by upgrading Haneef at the last minute and moving all of the journalists to the upper deck of the plane, well away from Haneef.
My best guess is that there never was any “secret information”. Andrews is doing his best to manufacture justifications after the fact. The more he does it, though, the sillier he looks.
It is hard to square the evidence so far that the Haneef’s perhaps are not be the type of family we want here, with the huge resources in investigating apparently very little. This doesn’t inspire confidence in me that we could efficiently and fairly manage the investigation of a real conspiracy.
Sorry my last post didnt format the way had typed it. :[
This event is actually sucking airspace and print space from Howard’s lot.
The reason why they do not want Haneef back and the real problem for the government is that the legal profession is either unwilling or incapable of carrying out the letter and intent of the anti-terrorism laws.
Incapable: e.g. the stuff-ups made by the DPP
Unwilling: e.g. the Brisbane Magistrate who over-rode the law’s presumption of denying bail for Haneef that forced the Minister to get directly involved in the first place.
Compare this one case to Britain where the legal profession is much more onside and where over 1200 such detentions have been made, with only 3% ever having enough evidence to be upheld in court.
Well, it’s open to various interpretations what Andrews’ selective release of this conversation means. SATP and others can draw their own inferences, albeit even on this release it seems pretty clear that Haneef had no prior knowledge of the events, as several posters have mentioned.
Even if we take it at face value: that his brother advised him to get out quick, it may have been just to avoid the frenzy in the media and the government which was to follow. And pretty good advice it was, if only he’d gotten away before the plods started closing in.
At the height of McCarthyism in the US and the infamous Rosenberg “Atom Spies” trial and conviction, a close friend of theirs, Morton Sobels, became very nervous. In addition to friendship he’d also been a communist activist with them, albeit never anything to do with espionage. He headed for Mexico in a panic, was chased after by the FBI just because of this ’suspicious behaviour’ and was eventually handed over to them by the Mexican secret police amid much media fanfare. He was brought into the trial, mostly because the case against the Rosenbergs was so flimsy and tainted, and the only evidence against him was perjured testimony by a work colleague. At least he wasn’t executed, but he still copped about 30 years, released after about 20.
At worst, Haneef’s behaviour is little different from Sobels: an attempt to escape the hysteria.
The real issue with Andrews, of course, is that the visa revocation, after perfectly safe bail arrangements had been made, was a contempt of court - interference with the judiciary if you like - and the big (but failed) play to turn it into a political football.
Listening to Andrews I think they will end up calling at a draw.
Good analysis Nhullunbuy. Just one question, did Sabeel the cousin in Liverpool get bail? I though he was detained.
I cannot understand how people who claim that they ‘take international terrorism seriously’ are supporting a Ministerial decision to stop watching a possible suspect and send them to India. If he was here, we could watch his every move, listen to every conversation and read every bit of correspondence he sends or receives. We might learn useful things about his associates and their activities and if we’re really, really lucky we might even help stop something bad from happening in the future, here or elsewhere in the world. This would be an unambiguously good thing that would help make the world a safer place and keep Australia the safe place it is.
Instead, we send him to India, outside the reach of the Austrlaian authorities. We don’t want him, he’s not our problem, we just want him to go somewhere else, anywhere else. We don’t care what he does, as long as he doesn’t do it here.
How does expelling Haneef add *anything* to the safety of Australia or the world? What is the upside to his expulsion, from a law enforcement or counter-terrorism perspective. How is this ‘taking terrorism seriously’?
I just don’t get it. I mean, I usually understand the ideology or motivation that informs various ‘right-wing’ views I disagree with, but I find this incomprehensible. If anyone can be bothered to explain to a tired old hack where the security upside is, I’d appreciate it. (I obviously can’t promise to agree with it, but I’ll appreciate it none the less :^)
d
From memory at the time of these events I believe he was released on bail. I dont know subsequently.
Tigtog: I think I pointed out on an earlier thread here that there is nothing unusual about different legal standards leading to contrary decisions on the same facts: a rape victim may get criminal injuries compensation (decided on a balance of probabilities standard) even though the accused was acquitted of the criminal charge (decided on “beyond reasonable doubt”.)
People here are also making a lot of assumptions, without any firm knowledge, as to what was put to the magistrate on the bail hearing, who decided what to put to her, and whether they had legitimate reason to not put certain stuff before her (or not in full detail.) It would be 100% certain, however, that it would not have been Andrews in that decision making loop.
It seems that Andrews had more detail than the Magistrate, for reasons nothing to do with him, and he was also making a decision based on different legislation. It should not be entirely surprising that the Magistrate and Andrews could come to different conclusions.
Now to speculate: perhaps Andrews could have avoided the “overriding the Magistrate” criticism if he had made his decision prior to the Magistrate’s, but only announced it after (and could prove he had made it beforehand). He could not have made the decision and announced it prior to the bail hearing, as he would have been accused of seeking to prejudice that outcome.
“If these chatroom conversations are sufficiently credible evidence of conspiracy to revoke his visa, then why was Haneef allowed to leave the country without conspiracy charges being laid?”
This is the mother of all stupid comments. To revoke a visa requires “reasonable suspicion”. To charge someone with a criminal offence the prosecutor must be satisfied that a court is likely to find the accused “guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”.
Let me put these things together:
“reasonable suspicion”
“guilty beyond all reasonable doubt”
Even the most obtuse and hysterical boutique leftist should be able to spot the difference.
If I remember, it was not the AFP preference to charge Haneef. They were still applying to extend his ‘detention’ after about 14 days. This doesn’t suggest to me that all this detention was just with a view to revoking a visa. Sounds like an extended fishing expedition that didn’t land anything and the visa revokation was a hasty fallback position.
This whole conversation is so stupid. This is just another example of the government lying its sagging tits off. Anyone remember children overboard? It’s a classic lie: swear till you’re blue in the face that you have incontrovertible evidence of a crime, and then release a pathetic tidbit of evidence.
Anyone who even considers believing the government when they release partial evidence like this is a fool. Everyone knows by now that you don’t have a conversation like this about this government until years later, when the evidence has finally been dug up and shown incontrovertibly that the whole lot of them are a bunch of lying weasels.
Daryl, I also made this point on an earlier thread, but it is time to repeat it. Hypothetically:
1. if Dr Haneef had been (say) in the USA and left there in a hurry after the Glasgow bombing,
2. the circumstances of his departure had been exactly the same, and he had the same conversations with his relatives that are disclosed,
3. our immigration minister was now deciding whether to let him come here for the first time on a work visa, and had been provided with evidence of the conversations from American authorities
would you think the Minister should grant the visa or not? You may think he should; but I am betting that many Australians would hold the reasonable view that he should not.
Mr Rosin - given the gnashing of teeth over the detention of illegal combatants at Gitmo (scratch one ex-guest this week!) I can understand the Government’s hesitation to hold a potential bit player. Perhaps they also think the Indians might be better off looking after their own Nationals.
And Harry showed up here to stick out his chin against the deranged.Why seeing the N.S.W.Police are collecting a list of regretables that go violent as previous described and proscribed by the Mental Health related Acts…dont worry Mark…I am ready for my violent behaviour. Now if they stop all medication, until it is absolutely proven to have no side effects whatsoever in all conditions of life that a described person could face,then Harry facing me via this activity isnt safe, until the process by the NHMRC fully concurs the latest medications, and, the accumulative effects of previous ones assessed drugs given to mental patients.. as safe !? After all why should the Police be blamed ,if I put up resistance here ,call him another one of these….. overpaid one-dimensional half-wits complying to their need to believe in themselves, rather than, any objective evidence of themselves… as observed in printed argument and the implicit set of pre-conditional values.. they seem to think are both worthy,and,by virtue of their worthiness.. bear down on those who would disagree with such…..and by virtue of the fact they arrest me,because I was insensitive to the normal Harry, as, I got shrill beyond the potential of Harry to understand me. Why would the Police be blamed !? Because I sounded friendly to Mark and the rules of the Blog,and only the Police ,because Psychiatrist cant… can pick someone on edge. Seeing the NHMRC are a bludging lot having a conversation with themselves,as they pretend to classify knowledge of safety before drugs are used,and ,somehow over time no longer prescribed for the proscribed, and are replaced as drugs,then, it is plainly obvious I am a danger to Harry….. because I cannot accept the nong has any idea of what deranged means to use the word in the offensive way that he did. Seeing he also isnt qualified to insist on that by using said words…that then means, to me, someone who has been taken away by Police three times to a mental authority place of practice………………………… Bear with me Mark…….Harry explain yourself! Harry!?….Harry could you please explain once and for all time why it is any argument against the present decisions of Andrews along with those people who opposed us being in Iraq should all voluntarily give up their work,their lives and ask immediately to be placed in a mental institution or be watched closely by Mental Health Authorities or those deemed to do the work under all Acts of government related to Mental Health.!?HARRY…!? Ummmm just kidding witching hour.
(pdf file)
One further thing I don’t understand is, if Haneef is so suspicious, why the Indian government appears to be so blase about him.
Good point Don.
Imagine if Haneef had got back to India before the AFP swooped. Does anyone seriously think the Australian government would have pursued the matter any further, let alone applied for his extradition? The whole idea of charging him here for an offence committed in the UK, when the UK authorities appear totally uninterested, was transparently self-serving from the very start, right down to Ruddock’s stalwart refusal to extradite him to the UK (ummm Phil it’s manners to wait until you’re asked). The real purpose of the exercise has been apparent ever since with the relentless barrage of government leaks and comments designed to keep the story on the front page.
They should have detained him without fuss until the Brits said they didn’t want him, then cancelled his visa if they felt they had to and sent him home - again without trumpeting it all over the media. Sadly, the signs are that they’ve achieved their grubby objective and will be given credit by the credulous for keeping the terrurists at bay.