Dennis Shanahan, playing with a fairly straight bat for once, pre-reports on the unreleased findings from John Clarke QC’s report into the charging and deportation of Dr. Mohammad Haneef. According to the report:
- Haneef should not have been charged.
- Haneef should not have been deported.
- The prosecution was so riddled with errors as to be incompetent.
- Anti-terrorism laws should be reviewed.
- The AFP and intelligence agencies should come under tighter controls including parliamentary oversight.
All as expected. But the most chilling finding in the whole affair is this:
…the report, commissioned by the Rudd Government, has cleared the Howard government of any improper behaviour, conspiracy or political motivation in ordering the detention and later deportation of the Indian doctor from the Gold Coast in July last year.
I wish to heaven there had been a conspiracy. Were it a conspiracy, that would mean a bunch of evil men had colluded to pervert the course of justice, persecute an innocent man, and abuse what are otherwise sound and well-designed laws and processes.
Instead, what John Clarke QC’s report shows is that the laws worked exactly as intended. There were no procedural irregularities. No perversion of justice. No wrongdoing by the actors and participants.
The machinery of the anti-terrorism laws, the AFP, ASIO and Minister Kevin Andrews operated with chilling, ruthless and legally correct efficiency to deprive an innocent man of his liberty, damn his good name to the world, bundle him out of the country, no ifs, no buts, no beg your pardons.
Such things should only be possible due to conspiracy of evil men against good laws. That it happened due to the actions of people acting correctly according to their procedures and their conscience, reminds us all just how heinous a state’s terror apparatus can become.
PS – And on that cheery note, I wish you the happiness of the season. May you spend it with people you love, whether in person or in your heart. And may it be a million miles from any government.
Yup. Did we expect any other result? I didn’t.
Really? I would have thought “Judicial Notice” [a rule in the law of evidence that allows a fact to be introduced into evidence if the truth of that fact is so notorious or well known] of Tampa and the fact of an imminent election (both times) would have been quite sufficient to condemn the Howard government in perpetuity.
It’s so counter intuitive, I’m gobsmacked.
Aw, c’mon.
Once he was granted bail, Andrews pulled Haneef’s visa so fast that the Beak had hardly finished delivering his judgment before the bloke was in custody again.
These may indeed be shitty laws. But they were also gleefully enforced by a pack of arseholes.
Like they were going to find the Howard Government guilty of corruption? Of course not. I mean, where would it all end if politicians were held accountable for their normal day-to-day management of government? Might I suggest so many of them would end up behind bars, especially Howard’s lot is the template, that we’d be in a state of permanent election. Holding pollies responsible legally responsible for their actions would surely make the country ungovernable.
But it would have been more than appropriate to see Howard’s rancid lot dragged through the courts, convicted and serving lengthy jail terms for their crimes, especially war-crimes and crimes against humanity. But it’ll never happen, more the pity.
The Get-up ad of Ratty cheering Rudd’s 5% emissions target is much closer to the truth. They all scratch each others’ backs, and it has ever been thus.
I thought ASIO said there was no reason to detain him? Wasn’t there a submission open to the public or something?
So, everything was completely stuffed up in the handling of this case but no one did anything wrong. Hmmm.
There’s a gap between improper purpose, or conspiracy, and mere administrative error.
Not saying I agree with the finding of lack of such improper purpose or conspiracy, just noting a legal distinction…
Sounds like the usual whitewash – lots of errors, but no-one at fault. And I’m absolutely astonished by the findings regarding Andrews and lack of political motivation – this was a guy who conspired against justice to subvert a court ruling if Haneef was released. If that’s not “improper”, then WTF is?
Oh, I forgot to mention the perjury and the government sources speaking openly of deportation as a means of limiting the political fallout. But clearly, none of this is improper, or political.
Pull the other one; it has bells on.
guys, get a grip.
Haneefs personal property was found in closely related incriminated hands.
He acted suspiciously in attempting flight under false prerences.
And terrorist-sump literature was found on his premises.
More than enough reason for Plod to throw him into the slammer.
sure subsequent investigatiom found an innocent explanation for all these concerning matters.
Which means Andrews over reacted a bit.
But the majority of the populace, in the light of 9/11 Bali and 7/7, want authorities to err on the side of caution.
Better safe than sorry.
The anti-terror laws and expanded policy powers enacted federally and around the country are only well-designed insofar as they allowed these men to do precisely as they have done, which is why the report calls for review and better oversight of the laws. They are only “sound” insofar as they were competently written so as to withstand judicial review. I regard their enactment as abuse and a grand conspiracy indeed.
Evan #3. “…the Beak had hardly finished delivering his judgment…”
She was a Magistrate, thus does not make judgements. That notwithstanding, it was bail that was granted, not a decision.
It should be noted that as fast as the minister was to revoke Dr. Haneef’s visa once bail was granted, the husband of the magistrate was even faster to get a megaphone & lead a street march declaring Dr. Haneef’s innocence.
What if it had been a judge instead of a magistrate… And a judge’s spouse leading a street marches, making public statements on a case which has only the previous day begen to be heard by his/her judge spouse?
Actually I think that Andrews did not come off as clean as everyone makes out. This is what is in the report in relation to Andrews cancelling the visa:
The operative word is mystifying. Clarke cannot say outright that there was something amiss, but that word says a lot in my eyes.
But the majority of the populace, in the light of 9/11 Bali and 7/7, want authorities to err on the side of caution.
.
Isn’t that the point Mercurius is making? That even tho’ in retrospect there was no reason to charge Haneef to throw him in the slammer sans habeas corpus he was grabbed and thrown in jail, deprived of contact with the outside world.
.
These laws remove protections against an unjust justice system. And yet, and this is really the bitter joke, this has not been cause for complaint amongst the very same people who’ve been beating their chests and waxing lyrical about ‘western civ’ and ‘our way of life’ and blah blah blah.
.
I submit restraints on legal power, separations of powers, the burdens of proof and the rest of it are what recommends ‘western civ’.
.
I also submit that the whole Haneef thing was intended to be Tampa II: This Time They’re Here in ‘Straya but lucky us we weren’t fooled again.
.
And what does Haneef do for a living? And what are we short of? Smart play all ’round.
Mercurius – And may it be a million miles from any government.
.
Well I tried but they’re not selling any Xmas holiday packages to Mars yet.
[via Judith at Poll Bludger]
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24837268-5005962,00.html
“”THE former Howard government does not owe one-time terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef an apology, despite an inquiry finding he was wrongfully arrested and detained, the opposition says….Opposition attorney-general spokesman George Brandis said the report proved the former government had done nothing wrong and “comprehensively exonerated” Mr Andrews……The prime minister owes Mr Andrews an apology”
Jack @ 10
Could you please explain to me how flying from Australia to India is fleeing?
The crime was committed in Great Britain. So he was heading toward the scene of the crime if anything.
How on earth can one conclude that getting on a plane half way round the world from the scene of the crime is ‘fleeing’?
Also, can you perhaps elaborate why you think that having the property of someone related to you is suspicious? What exactly is the big deal about a sim card? I guess if you visited a relative overseas, bought yourself a prepaid sim card, why wouldn’t you give it to a relative when you left? If there was some money left on it, it sounds the most logical thing to do, and more to the point, anyone with a bit of sense would do it.
I’ve not had a chance to have a look at the report yet (busy with other things, spotty internet access on hols), but from what I’ve read, heard, and seen so far, I think Robert McLelland’s explanation of why agency heads (read Mick Keelty) should stay on is pretty dodgy.
If there was a failure in policies and procedures which contributed to the AFP officers directly responsible for the investigation stuffing up, the question is then who is responsible for those policies and procedures. Keelty was presumably either responsible for the procedures, or was responsible for the appointments of the people who wrote the procedures.
One can only conclude that Keelty is being protected because he was doing the bidding of his political masters, and the government is not eager to rake over the coals of the Howard years.
Yep.. as we enter 09 many will have a change of heart to save em, selves.
In the mean time, Good will to all honest free thinkers.
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. A damning report – “this shouldn’t have happened” says the Attorney General.
But it did. And nobody apparently is accountable.
The whole affair was very clearly dodgy at the time, and clearly politically motivated, although the report is silent on this last point, apart from the “mystifying” comment, which is code for
“well, shit happens when politicians are thrashing about during election campaigns looking for angles and beat ups, but both sides do this so lets cover Kevin Andrew’s arse lest we get locked up for something similar during the next election campaign”.
Conspiracy or incompetence, take you pick. Either way the Crown DPP, Kevin Andrews and the AFP were all clearly at fault – and action should be taken against all of them, rather than the whitewash we are seeing.
In his report, Justice Clarke said he was “mystified” by former immigration minister Kevin Andrews’ decision to cancel the Indian-born doctor’s visa after he was granted bail. How could he then conclude that he had not been involved improper behaviour?
It just does not make any sense to come to a conclusion about an innocent motive when you have already said you don’t understand it.
If Joh had been in power he would have said , “If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, the it is a duck.
He is a duck, an unfortunate duck, but a duck.
Oh for Joh
Fr.Jack Hackett
The AFP are the Department of Homeland Security you have when your not having a Department of Homeland Security.
The Intervention is the State-of-emergency you have when your not having a State-of-emergency.
And the secret net-filter trials are the totalitarian net-censorship regime you have when your not having total net-censorship regime.
And K-Rudd is the Tony Blair you have when your not having a Tony Blair.
Nothing new to see here – move along.
Joe2, I have not read the entire decision but on the basis of this thread it seems that he said: “But, although I found no evidence of conspiracy or an improper purpose, I do find the cancellation—and particularly its timing — mystifying.” Where is the conclusion about innocent motive? There is none. In fact he is going out of his way to signal that he doesn’t buy the innocent motive explanation, but professionally he is bound to tell us that there was no evidence of wrongdoing. The question remains open so far as the inquiry is concerned. Can’t ask for more than that, unless you want the man to explicitly speculate without the benefit of actual evidence.
BBB
“The power of the executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgment of his peers, is in the highest degree odious, and the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist.”
~Winston Churchill
Let’s see… um… ah… if youv’e done nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about. Or something like that. Yes, that will do.
Dr Haneef is an unfortunate casualty in the effort to disrupt terrorism – in particular islamic fanatics.
If this was a normal criminal case I would be outraged at his treatment. Because it is related to anti-terrorism efforts I am not that upset.
Merry Christmas.
How does anyone top this?
“Mate, if you don’t like how our rule-of-law kinda almost self-corrects with the help of the John Clarke’s, QC’s, of Austalia, then why don’t you move to Russia?”
So many strawmen, too few eggs, never enough omelettes–gotta watch my ‘24′ downloads to get hints on where the jihadists strike next!
Serious question–is Bob Debus the current federal minister for ‘anti-terror’ policy? Will, or can, he and McClelland put in place government reforms to prevent the thinly-veiled politicisation of future Haneeef cases, god forbid any future cases arise? Would we even know if or when this is done?
“If this was a normal criminal case I would be outraged at his treatment. Because it is related to anti-terrorism efforts I am not that upset.”
Because it is related to anti-drug efforts….
Because it is related to anti-child-pron efforts….
Because it is related to anti welfare-fraud efforts….
Because it is related to anti Holocaust-denial efforts….
etc
We can always make exceptions for the “demon du jour” no matter how hyped up it is.
There’s absolutely nothing mystifying about Kevin Anderson’s motives. (Might I suggest the following hypothetical.
John Howard rings Kevein Anderson.
John Howard: “This Haneef guy. He’s got off.”
Kevin Anderson:”Yes. John …
J:”There’s an election coming up, you fuckwit. This prick was a ready made terrorist scare. He can get us back into government.”
K:”I know, John …”
J:”Fix it. Jesus, Kev. Listen, don’t you stuff this up the way you stuffed up Workchoices!”
K: “I could cancel his visa. That’d make him look guilty. ”
J: “Will it keep this shit going until the election?’
K:”I think so.”
J: “Do it!” (hangs up.)
Spot on Paul. A similar convesation to the one between Howard and Downer when he asked him for a solution for all those grotty boat people arriving – and Downer devised the Pacific solution for him.
It’s not really mystifying at all – unless you are looking for a reasonable justification for Andrew’s actions.
It’s actually a very clever report, it completely undermines the defense, “there was reasonable grounds”, which I noted one poster tried yet leaves open for the civil courts the portioning of blame.
Wide enough to undermine the defense, thin enough not to be a target.
not much justice for the innocent but lots of white(clark)wash for the perpetrators and their current hangers on re Keelty, Brandis and Rud(duck)today
Haneef will get monetary compensation, probably quite a lot. It’s a pity that the money can’t come directly from the hides of those who cheered on his arrest and detention … perhaps it can.
If you read the report, the bit that amused me most was how Kevin Andrews was able to say that he was not aware of the ASIO report that said Haneef was of no interest to them, and there was no evidence at all against him.
Surprise, surprise, Andrews’ Department knew all about the ASIO report but somehow managed to ensure their Minister could deny knowing of it.
How very Children Overboard of them.
Yep, its amazing. A massive stuff-up, blatantly political decisions (how the deportation decision is “mystifying” to anyone is mystifying), demonstrable public lying (including to courts), an innocent man’s reputation and livelihood ruined, and yet somehow nobody did anything wrong. Clarke has not helped his own public reputation at all, though he may have helped his reputation with the People That Matter.
I don’t know what is more incredible -the anodyne nature of the report or the fact that some people are still trying to excuse the government’s action. It takes a parrticularly mendacious person to still maintain in the face of all the evidence that there is no problem with the government and the AFP slandering and attempting to destroy innocent man.
No surprise then that Phillip Ruddock sees nothing wrong with his contribution to this sorry affair.
Haneef should sue all those people who called him a terrorist. That’s a lot of people. The right wing blogs should make for rich pickings.
It takes a particularly mendacious person to continue to argue that terrorism should be dealt with as a law and order issue and subject to the same legal processes and rights as common criminals.
How exactly are the attacks on the World Trade Centre, Sari Night Club, London and Madrid trains, Mumbai etc etc the same as common crimes?
The UK does, Razor. Treating terrorism exclusively as crime has been the UK’s official policy in Northern Ireland since the late 1970s.
Every British administration since Thatcher has been committed to treating the Provisional IRA and its successors as common criminals, not political or special criminals. It was the issue which motivated the hunger strikers.
After the Omagh bombing the civil courts even became involved; the victims’ families took the RIRA to court for damages.
Razor @ 38
As the British experience with the IRA showed in spades, degrading the rights of alleged terrorists does nothing for the fight against terrorism, and is probably counter productive.
The Haneef case has bred a cynical but understandable view in the public that the Keystone Cops (aka the Federal Police and ASIO) will just fit up any half-plausible suspect because their political masters expect a head on a plate.
You should care about that even if you don’t care about individual Muslim darkies who, in your words, are just “unfortunate casualties”.
I suppose this sham of a report is a pretty good outcome -if the intent was to bring the state into further disrepute.
Ruddock’s effort in this morning’s interview at excusing himself and his cronies is just plain embarrassing.
This episode makes me doubt the veracity of any of the recent so-called “terror’ episodes.
Words can’t express my disappointment at the extent of the dishonesty that those who hold power will stoop to in order to convince us mugs of their relevance.
I presume that Razor is happy for taxpayers to stump up compensation payments to persons like Haneef when it is discovered that they have been innocent victims of miscarriages of justice and of politically motivated scare tactics.
Shouldn’t this money be declared as campaign contributions for the party in power at the time and subtracted from their public funding at the next general election?
(For those without a sense of humour, the above paragraph is satirical hyperbole.)
Any know if the fat toad Ackerman,or the denialist Bolt have said sorry to Haneef yet,or any of their acolytes have
Interesting that the Prime Minister’s Office was in it up to their necks, but I gather they were’nt allowed to testify. Clarke apparently considered requesting the powers of a Royal Commission, where people would be compelled to testify, according to the print version of today’s SMH. I wonder who changed his mind?
As much as I regret that there wasn’t a witch-hunt (RWDBs are fair game, so long as they get a fair hearing/trial) I can understand why there wasn’t one. Each successive Government would not be able to resist tearing its predecessor to shreds. Not good form.
But the thing I found truly appalling is that the journos were only given 4 minutes to look at the report. Certainly not enough time for in-depth analysis or difficult questions – and the fact that it was launched the day before Christmas so only political junkies would really take notice.
Q. Who the hell are the Ruddites protecting apart from the obvious candidates, and why?
Razor “38: “How exactly are the attacks on the World Trade Centre, Sari Night Club, London and Madrid trains, Mumbai etc etc the same as common crimes?
“
The “common crimes” are killing and wounding people, and damaging property. As Liam @39 implies, any ideological or political rationale for such acts should not matter in the slightest. The damaging and illegal nature of the acts, and their scale, are what the law should concentrate on.
No special “terrorist” status should have any weight in law. It will only be used to either justify special “political” status for the perpetrators, or conversely, to erode their rights to be treated fairly and justly. Or by totalitarian governments, to spook the public and justify criminalisation of thoughts and words.
Everyone complicit in the persecution of Haneef should be prosecuted properly. We delegate power to our leaders on the understanding that they will set a bl**dy example, for chrissakes.
Razor re:
Mmmm. Mendacious: “not telling the truth; lying : mendacious propaganda.” Sounds like the Bird’s response to people who disagree with him.
If terrorism is not a “law and order” issue then what is it Razor?
A “Star Chamber” issue, where executive government declares the right to lock them up without due legal process, torture them and not bring them before ( eg the readily available mob of Armed _forces_ brain_ dead_ redneck_ dickheads_ without_ legal_ training_ tribunal) a kangaroo court for years???
Please elaborate: are you saying that the Guantanamo treatment is the order of the day, that all the Geneva conventions on combatants and civilians can be conveniently disregarded?
Longer term problem with your apparent kangaroo court approach Razor is that one day such governments that think the way you do; are allowed to carry out those illegal acts ( egged on by Bushovics and Howardistas et al desirous of appealing to the lowest common denominator of fear and stupidity) will declare political opposition “terrorists” and invent all sorts of excuses for dealing with that opposition in a likewise Gitmo fashion.
So, if you want that kind of fascism, why not advocate it openly?
Elsewhere on LP, I see that the govt is reviewing the sedition laws. There’s this quote:
“The new counter-terrorism laws – to be drafted in the first half of next year – will cover attacks that cause psychological as well as physical harm…”
Given the breathless rumour mongering and dire warnings from the pollies involved in the Haneef farce, I reckon they’d be in deep shit for spooking the sheep. These self-serving tools terrorised their fellow Australians with horror stories.
Ackerman, Henderson and Bolt provided the echo chamber.
Well Razor, you can include former Attorney General Chris Ellison within your “mendacious” category. He put on the public record – at an IT conference in Sydney where he spoke on anti money laundering legislation – that “terrorism is in fact just criminal act”.
Which of course it is, unless you are just trying to play up the threat, polarise public opinion, scare people, justify lies like Kevin Andrew’s, and actions outside of the law such as falsely detainining people then vilifying them. A bit Orwellish eh?
What is amazing about Andrew’s is his claims at the time that he “couldn’t release the AFP information that he based his decision to cancel Haneef’s visa due to security concerns” at the time – and now he says he didn’t have information from the AFP. A blatant lie. He should be locked up for fraud and deception, and for being the boy who cried wolf.
Of course, in Howard’s Australia, Haneef could have saved himself a lot of grief and the AFP a lot of headaches…. simply by divulging the year Don Bradman made his first century.
What year was that? I seriously don’t know.
So Paul… would you prefer Woomera, Port Hedland or Villawood?
On today, of all days, you mean to rule Christmas Island out of the mix mars?
Well, I’d like to see Rudd shut down Xmas Island, Mars.
I don’t know if they’ll shut down Christmas Island or just rename it Crippling Private Debt Island. The second option seems to be the more popular choice.
I think it would make a splendid convention/re-education centre for public servants struggling to implement new government policy.
Interesting that both SatP & Jack(Too much)Strokey could only manage one, perfunctory, defence of the indefensible whereas they’ll usually qrgue black is white until the threat is totally derailed. So even they have some shame…? Nah, probably just the christmas break.
I want to see an enquiry into the Customs Whistleblower prosecution, esp given the many comments from the then Opposition who now, with their bums firmly on the Treasury benches, have gone very silent.