This is all I could think of when I heard the news that the supporting terrorism charges against Haneef have been dropped. (The first few minutes especially.)
So many half-arsed assumptions and incompetent deductions.
A spokesman for Scotland Yard would not comment on the investigation or how the mistake was made. He would not say how the British-Australian operation was conducted, but the British source said he believed the federal police were blaming geographical and time differences for the bungle.
“It deserves a public inquiry, that kind of mess-up,” the source said. He also said police involved in searching Sabeel Ahmed in Liverpool were appalled at what he said was political pressure on the federal police by the Federal Government.
So far the Immigration Minister is holding firm on his decision to revoke Haneef’s visa, so it is likely that Haneef will be deported as soon as he’s released.
I certainly hope that Dr Haneef will receive a full, written apology from the Howard Government. However, I will not be holding my breath.
According to the SMH, Andrew’s going to reinstate his visa.
And the article has this choice sentence:
Who the hell are they trying to kid?
We shall soon surely be hearing those words made famous in “The Games”:
“Mr Andrews has my total support.”
(SFX offstage: bag over Andrews head, feet don’t touch the ground as he is whooshed off to the backbenches)
Andrew’s can’t take a trick. Imagine making Ruddock look good.
Nothing Mugabeish in that.
It really must be Friday.
Mr Andrews said Dr Haneef could return to his home in residential detention while the information was sought from the solicitor-general.
I wonder if this includes a gag order ??
From an Age article dated 17/Jul/07
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/lawyers-seeing-parallels-with-hicks-case-but-more-quickly/2007/07/17/1184559788802.html
The SMH editorial about questions to be answered in light of the obvious discrepancies between police/prosecutorial claims in court and the record of interview is well worth reading.
If a defendant was found to have such glaring discrepancies in their testimony they would be liable to charges of perjury, surely? Shouldn’t the AFP/Prosecutors at least be liable to charges of contempt of court?
Mr Howard said it was up to Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty and Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Damian Bugg QC to explain what happened.
“Bearing in mind that the detention of the man was undertaken by the police, and not at the request or direction or encouragement of the Government, and the case was prepared and presented by the DPP, I think that the right thing now is for those two men to explain the process, and explain the reasons,” he said from Bali where he is on a visit.
“Prime ministers don’t conduct prosecutions, nor do attorneys-general – directors of public prosecutions do.”
Typical response from The Rodent.
Shorter Crodent:
“Pass the soap when you’re done, Phil”
Worth noting that Howard has kept this man in gaol a couple of days extra than even he thought necessary just to make sure it happened on a Friday when he was out of the country. I can no longer pledge my electoral support for our PM at the next election. He’s a cad.
LOL @ wbb
Evidence is scrutinized by a court, & its discrepancies or otherwise support or do not support the evidential case. You’re not charged with perjury for incompetence, your case simply collapses.
& yet again Mike Keelty takes a huge bucket of foul governmental fixing. I would suspect Brack’s example is looking mighty tempting at present.. Especially as their colleagues in the UK are quite happy to point out the degree of political interference. Perhaps Mr Andrews could wear one of those nice orange suits for a week or two – Mr Hicks has a couple to spare.
Spot on, wbb.
I know where I’d be going if I was Dr. Haneef (after visiting my daughter of course) – to a wonderful, magical place:
Anyone want to guess at this? I’m thinking preventing the lawyer getting access to the police transcripts have to be pretty close to the top of the list, as well as that whole “bail” thing.
Or if they’re feeling extra-cocky, just getting rid of the access to a lawyer. And judges, what do they know? Surely the Minister for Immigration should be able to decide all legal cases involving immigrants.
It is still scary that the government can cancel a person’s visa with a lower standard of proof than the courts. It is further scary that the government can keep this matter secret and not reveal it even to the defendent’s solicitor.
This is totally unacceptable. How can we be sure that a government will not frame a migrant for various base reasons?
There is a certain amount of paranoia amongst the migrant community about the decision to cancel the visa. People are even scared to talk about the Haneef case on the phone in case the AFP comes for them.
It appears that it is OK if you are Australia born but for the others it is not comfortable. Or is this a back door way of implementing a White Australia policy?
yes, anthony – Howard and Ruddock have been quietly but visibly seething in their interviews recently – not about Keelty or Andrews – but at the gaps in their dear, dear legislation that unprincipled lawyers have snuck thru.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so…
No wait, it’s still funny.
Mr Howard will probably ring Keelty and make sure he explains what happened in a way that enable Keelty to keep his job.
Conversation topics infrequently heard these days:
That Don Rumsfeld is a military genius.
What are the COW soldiers doing with all those gifts of flowers and chocolates?
Mr Howard is such a clever young politician.
Dr Haneef really should sue the hell out of the responsible individuals in the government and AFP for wrongful arrest, defamation and destruction of career. And that’s on top of any criminal charges that can be laid against them down the track.
It is important that the message be sent that this level of incompetence combined with trampling roughshod over the judiciary and due process is not tolerable in a supposedly civilised democracy, and that people who believe otherwise will not be tolerated in positions of power.
Yes well given that Vivien Alvarez-Solon is STILL waiting for compensation – I suspect Mr Haneef would be more than happy to shake the loathsome sand from his shoes & leave this blighted country, no?
It’s perjury in the case of deliberate lies in an affidavit Tigtog. In the case of the usual police statement, it is usually prefaced thus in NSW criminal cases:
I don’t know in what form all the prosecution bail submissions and evidence of the alleged offence were presented, either by affidavit or statement or combination. The former is significant by swearing an oath and the latter attracts penalty by prior recognition of penalty for deliberate false evidence.
For practical purposes, therefore there is not much difference as the swearing of a false affidavit also is proven if it is established deliberate lies were told.
I think we can assume that incompetence and stupidity may well be covered by “to the best of my knowledge” or in the case of an affidavit “I believe that the information contained in this affidavit is true”
He was prosecuted for a crime and the evidence was found to be defective so charges were withdrawn.
So what?
& Howard’s comment that the laws will have to be expanded – ie will have to weaken the rule of law even further – sits in ironic opposition to moves at state Criminal law level, where rules of evidence are being tightened. See for example Keller v Regina 2006 NSWCCA 204. Had the case been facing the NSW criminal system, the DPP would be launching it as a paper plane. After about 20 minutes.
Peter Kemp:
Peter,
if it turns out that investigators did write names in Haneef’s diary, wouldn’t that be tampering with evidence? According to what we hear in the press, it fooled at least one interviewing detective.
Are any of you prepared to part with a little cash over this?
It’s probably a stupid, naive, amateurish thing to do, but it seems to me it would be more than just a symbolic gesture if those of us feeling quite cross about this did something a little more substantial than just complain about it.
Haneef’s lawyer Peter Russo is with Ryan and Bosscher Lawyers in Brisbane. If I knew how I’d do the link thing, but I don’t so if you’re interested you’ll have to Google it, unless someone else would be so kind?
There’s a ‘contact us’ thingo on the page where you leave your details and a comment. I left one asking how to go about making a donation since the powers that be are unlikely to consider compensation.
There’s been a lot of discussion here lately about what the blogosphere does and I see this as something constructive that could be difficult to ignore if enough people join in. Maybe it’s impossible to donate anyway, but if enough people ask it would at least give Russo a media opportunity. Surely?
Watching Peter Faris on SBS, “the anti terror laws are working properly and should be toughened”. He says “The public expects terror to be stopped and would necessitate suspects being detained.” Sick. The right in this country is morally bankrupt.
HC’s comment reminds me of the response of the commandant of the Turkish prison when asked if he was ashamed of their cruel treatment of Billy Hayes ( subject of the film ‘Midnight Express’). ‘Not at all.’ he said,’ We took an American dope smuggler and turned him into a best-selling author.’
Apart from the fact that Minister Andrews, without restraint by any legal requirements, took action against an innocent man that may well have blighted his career, the highest legal officer in the land, Minister Ruddock, made comments prejudicial to the case ( that Haneef
‘ was trying to leave the country with indecent haste’); both of these actions warrant a resignation at the least, but in this nation of supine racist indifference, we’re hardly likely to see anyone in the current government have the moral decency to do that. This was no ordinary case, HC, and your vapid, shallow comment betrays either moral indifference or the standard disingenuousness we have come to expect from the apologists of the right.
Um, Harry, he should never have been charged, you are being cavalier with peoples lives. Oh, I know he’s just brown.
AndyC, re
Generally it’s tort law here.
ie in a false imprisonment suit, a plaintiff must generally prove: (1) willful detention; (2) without consent; and (3) without authority of law.
Police are generally exempt ie for probable cause but negligence could have a look in, like locking up somebody on sloppy identification.
Malicious prosecution possibly more the go. Without Lunz and Hambly Butterworths at hand, wiki says
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malicious_prosecution
Will be interesting OTOH to see if/how much a submission is made on legals costs.
Harry,
you can be the Arthur Fonzarelli of the bloogosphere, or you can be man nough to admit you were wrong.
Over to you.
Brendon re:
I can’t see how it could be construed otherwise, unless for example the cop who did it had an IQ of about 60 and scratch marks all over the back of his hands from his normal method of walking.
Back to the malicious prosecution, I’d be arguing that a malicious runt (Ratty) did have malice aforethought when he, or AG Dracula pressured the APF while political saliva was dripping all over their faces–”Joe Sixpack here we come.”. Proof of course is the rub, and you can bet there’s no paper trail.
(Anybody think they didn’t pressure Keelty?)
If I recall correctly, hc’s spontaneous response to Dr Haneef’s detention was a wild rant about adulterers being stoned in Iran … following which he commented on his own post that if Dr Haneef was subsequently found to be innocent he would undoubtedly get an apology and be allowed to go about his business … following which said comment was stealthily altered.
So I think we already know Harry’s
prejudicesopinions.Looks like India is demanding Haneef be given a proper visa.
I think the writing’s been on the wall over this for a while now. I’d have put $500 on the bet that this would happen today in this way. Justice Spender flagged this right up front, calling out Andrews to provide more information once the minister got involved. (Spender, incidentally, being an old labor judge itching for some civil rights action, and now having the QUT hookam/mclennan case in his sights, if his comments at the interlocutory hearing last week are to be taken seriously – which I believe they are).
Well, as far as I’m concerned the initial arrest was probably prudent, if a little political. It’s a hard call to make, and I think the AFP probably initially did the only thing they could given the various tensions at play. What came later, evidence tampering or whatever, speaks volumes about the current political climate.
That said, as soon as Immigration got involved, the whole thing went really foul. For me now the issue is restitution. What can be done to make it up to the poor guy? Fairly obviously his situation in Australia has become untenable. Yeah, he’ll get his visa back – and be on the next plane out of here, I imagine. I’d be surprised to see so much as a press conference from him. Even his flatmate went to ground afterwards.
Accountability is now the next big issue. And hopefully the right people will be brought under scrutiny. For me, the AFP are merely one, somewhat vaudeville, player here. I’m much more affronted by the outrageous steps taken by the government to keep this doctor under lock and key.
At least the system will be forced to act more prudently next time. But that hardly helps make amends, does it?
Andrews says Haneef can live in his unit while his visa decision is reviewed.[link]
Unfortunately, his landlord says his lease has run out , the place needs cleaning after the cops trashed it, and all his stuff is in storage.[link]
Peter Kemp:
Peter,
its only “pressure” when people like Keelty retire and write their memoirs to claim they were unwilling accomplices as they rat on their former bosses with a version of events that makes them sound like the good guys. Think Powell and Tenet. People like Keelty wouldn’t be hired in the first place if they had to get pressured into such things. Senior officers would be feeling the pressure, not the Keelty’s of this world.
“Yes well given that Vivien Alvarez-Solon is STILL waiting for compensation”
They settled her case out of court for $$$$$$$$Undisclosed.
Cornelia Rau is still waiting compensation.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/news/national/wrongly-held-detainee-offered-50000-interim-payment/2007/07/01/1183228941023.html
No, Peter Kemp, none of us believe that the government didn’t pressure Keelty. As you say, there’ll be no paper trail. There’s no need for one. After 11 years, no senior government official is in any doubt about what’s expected of them. As soon as this broke, Keelty would have instinctively have understood the agenda, particularly in the climate of an upcoming election, where the opportunity to demonstrate their ‘tough on terror’ credentials would be irrestistible for a struggling government. Ditto the officials in Andrews’s department who provided him with the advice to cancel his visa.
Accountability is indeed the big issue, CDB. And accountability doesn’t stop at the officials whose fingerprints are so obviously all over this. Ministerial scalps are required. Who in the MSM will lead the call?
Oh Dear
The story about the unit is unbelievable. The only way out for these Incompetent clowns is to restore his visa and send him back to his wife with an official apology.
The damage the Federal Government has inflicted on itself will see them languishing with about 25 percent TPP if this bungling goes on for a few more weeks.
Ditto if they refuse to restore his visa and just try to deport him.
Andrews, Howard and Ruddock are just looking so incompetent it is hard to believe that they see themselves as part of a Government at all now.
It looks like they have activated the self destruct button.
No income, no home, his reputation trashed, he still hasn’t seen his child, his movements restricted etc
Lovely mob aren’t they.
My predictions:
1. The visa will be back, and pronto.
2. This will be moot. Reputation trashed, Haneef will head back to family. Even when vindicated, who wants to be part of a terrorism related media beat up in a foreign country that hasn’t exactly proven itself to be friendly or fair?
3. Ryan and Bosscher will plug away in the background seeking restitution (and with a great fee deal given the prestige of the case). They’ll probably get something modest. It will take a while, and the spotlight will be switched off by then.
4. The higher-ups will avoid the fallout. AFP officers, perhaps, anyone who can be directly tied to misconduct will be fingered. But we’re talking a lot of ambient pressure here, rather than – as has been pointed out – paper trails. Punishing ministers will have faded from being an issue because they won’t be ministers anymore after a change of government.
5. Under a labor government, and given the string of bungling, the DPP and AFP might have some pause for thought before acting, but will still need to err on the side of the jackboots in order to satisfy public sensitivity to the issue.
Harry Clarke today:
Harry Clarke on the 16th of July:
http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/07/md-haneef-in-custody-keep-balanced-view.html
The waste of police resources on this case is another thing that needs to be explained in detail. Hundreds of police working around the clock barking up the wrong tree is not a wise use of police resources. Especially when only a month ago the Government was begging the states to send extra police to make up the numbers in it’s war on the Northern Territory sexual Abuse problem.
Lyn, good suggestion. I’ll see if there’s an email address for Peter Russo and see what we can do.
Petard 1 – Harry Clark 0.
Looks like Abbott has broken ranks with some other Government hard heads.
I am one of the deranged Left most of the time,but this Harry idiot is out of line. Both the Doctor and Police have seen dead bodies up close more than their relatives dying..if I was so unlucky or professional. The Federal Police will get over it, I am sure… after all they are big boys and girls,and if he is lucky so will Haneef, he must already know a thing or two about distress.A bit economical with his insults is the Harry. There are other ways to support government enquiry re terrorism than blandly believe that comparisons with other countries are wholesome,and to some advantage to Police.They arent. I will guess that the Police are self-respecting,because there is no good reason why they should trust economists as great sympathisers. Just remember Winchester,even if a journalist by the name of Mitchell thinks the economist was innocent.Take that Harry. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. And other professionals and baked bean eaters generally.
I trust that the lessor went to the Small Claims Tribunal to seek the appropriate orders.
How difficult is it to make sure he has been given tenancy advice?
Lock someone up for two weeks no charge and not ascertain that they can maintain their housing, that will show them terrorists.
Funny, that’s exactly where Howard was heading when the brown stuff hit the fan over Bill Heffernan’s use of Parliamentary privilege to smear Kirby, J. Another odd coincidence.
Let’s not forget the media’s role in all this. There has been some excellent investigative reporting, but also some total lies. Were these lies fed to a compliant media, or were the media just making things up?
Surprise, surprise, it was nearly all News Ltd making the pace.
The Australian leaked the transcript (criticized as illegal by Keelty). The Sunday Mail’s outrageous lies about a plot to blow up a Gold Coast landmark were denied by Keelty himself within 24 hours. The Australian claimed police wrote in Haneef’s diary, which Haneef himself denied. The Herald Sun published unauthorised photos of Haneef’s flat, taken before the place was fingerprinted, totally compromising the evidence. Etc Etc.
Of course this was all desperate politics by desperate men, but once again it was the Murdoch media wot enabled all the fear-mongering nonsense.
I love it when the Murdoch press get involved in trying to prop up the Howard Government this year. Every time the polls and bookies odds fall further away from the Government. Even Morgan was not good for them today.
I never asserted Haneef’s guilt. To the contrary I opened my remarks by reminding all of the presumption of innocence.
His case was investigated and the charges were found to be based on the wrong information provided by DPP and were dropped – although he is still under investigation.
No drama. Its the way the legal system operates. In this case the issue was resolved quickly and with minimal harm.
Not every person charged with an offence is found guilty you ignorant and dishonest pretenders.
Those charged are only always found guilty in those totalitarian countries that you lot cheersquad. They never get it wrong!
Anyway blow it up, confuse the basic issues, create a smokescreen. Another scandal to keep you muckraking busy for another few days.
What will it be next week? I thing the ‘wedge politics’ line has been used a bit too much ….maybe….
One other point that is of interest, Rudd’s response after his briefing early in proceedings was very carefully worded.No surprise at that, but will he get another briefing to explain the farce that followed!!!! Is he also due some sort of explanation!! Would be a fascinating meeting.
Exactly,HC, that is why Howard is on the ropes. Wedge politics is all he knows and it just does not work any more.
Well not quite Harry. The vile Andrews is still sticking to his line about the oh-so-secret “evidence” that no-one must see, has maintained the smear of Haneef’s ‘bad character’ despite all evidence in the public realm to the contrary, and removed his visa based on some vague accusation of terrorist links.
If that decision stands Haneef won’t be able to travel anywhere to pursue his study or career.
And really, your line about this being just another criminal dealt with in accordance with the law is such a dishonest steaming pile of dogshit I’m surprised you can bear to have it in the same room.
Sigh.
Where do we start?
1. Note, Harry, how you accept this untrue and incriminating Government Gazette story as true. Aren’t you just a little embarrassed by your credulity?
2. What on earth has “the scale of the horror associated with terrorism” to do wih the innocence or guilt of Dr Haneef? Aren’t you just a little embarrassed by your intemperate and prejudicial comments?
There are plenty who are embarrassed on your behalf.
Perhaps Harry, who’s never ever motivated by politics as we know (despite all his rhetoric about the “deranged left” etc) could explain whether he still stands by this little tidbit from the thread on his post of July 16?
http://kalimna.blogspot.com/2007/07/md-haneef-in-custody-keep-balanced-view.html#8712532607937409065
Or he might like to explain this gem, which reinforces his touching faith in any pronouncement by a Minister:
And then he might like to explain the difference between being “found innocent” and having the charges dropped because they were farcical, and while he’s at it, whether he still reflexively accepts everything Andrews says and does on the basis of his access to all this secret information, which presumably justifies the continued “detention” of Haneef, which Ken writes about at Surfdom:
http://www.roadtosurfdom.com/2007/07/27/detention-at-ministerial-pleasure/
Harry you’re not a stupid man, why are you acting like one?
He should never have been charged. Do you really support a legal system under which people are first detained, then charged, and only then have the basis of the charges investigated? The DPP hasn’t dropped the charges on account of some significant new evidence, or an arcane point of law. He dropped them because he finally deigned to notice blatant flaws in the evidence that ordinary people had been screaming about for days. ‘Its the way the legal system operates’ you say. Do you really believe that Harry? If so, you’re not only deeply cynical but ignorant. The legal system only operates like that under the so-called ‘anti-terror’ laws that Howard’s mob keep making.
Quite apart from this, you studiously ignore the way Kevin Andrews has bypassed the legal system altogether to detain Dr Haneef without being answerable to anyone … powers that he has exercised again today, to prevent Haneef either returning to India or resuming his life in Australia. Just because Andrews feels like it, apparently. Do you understand the 800 years of history behind habeas corpus Harry? Are you really content to smugly let the executive government eat away at the most important legal principle underpinning individual liberty, just to satisfy your paranoia?
Your true perspective shines through in your fatuous comment that there has been ‘minimal harm’. Sure. Tell that to Dr Haneef, whose life and career lie in ruins, or to his family.
This episode has been truly enlightening about some of the pretentious prats who call themselves ‘libertarians’. They’ve demonstrated conclusively that they couldn’t give a shit about individual liberty. They’re just small-minded greedy people who want to huddle in a corner and whine about paying too much tax. Pathetic.
Could it be that Harry is motivated neither by respect for the rule of law nor by a desire not to be fooled by lies and proaganda?
Could it be that Harry is a willing enabler of Howard’s wedge politics?
Sad, if true.
Heh!
Nuff said.
Mark
In this case I am motivated by the truth not a pack of obvious deceptions.
Haneef was picked up because of evidence (ex post known to be flawed) that he was associated with terrorism.
The evidence was believed not only by Andrews et al but also by the Federal Police, the DPP, Kevin Rudd and his shadow minister.
The issue of terrorism is serious and connections with it difficult to prove. It is not a trivial matter.
The information supplied by the DPP to the Federal Police was found to be flawed and the charges against Haneef were dropped.
Yes he may be innocent but he is free after a few weeks. Yes some innocent people are injured by the criminal justice system. Again do you only prosecute cases against those you know with 100% certainty are guilty? In that even cases will never be dismissed and no-one prosecuted in a criminal case will ever be found guilty.
You can distort and create smokescreens but that is what happened.
You are behaving like a bunch of hysterics. Do you guys have an organism every time you get to froth at the mouth with indignation. There has to be some emotional reward that justifies your continued stupid behaviour and intemperate language.
A couple of posts mentioned ‘libertarians’ in an offensive way so a reasonable hunch might be that is linked to me. I am not a libertarian, support the public sector, did not support the last round of tax cuts etc.
Apart from being an emotional misdirected lot with concern for releasing steam rather than getting at the truth you are also just inaccurate.
All the more reason, I’d have thought, Harry, for the evidence to be sifted carefully and for the decision to lay flimsy or baseless charges not to be flippantly taken. Andrews’ actions are just indefensible.
No, but you certainly don’t prosecute cases where there’s no chance a jury would convict.
hc, I don’t see the cheersquad for any totalitarian countries on this blog.
You have the same leap of logic as your fellow travelers. The implication being that if people want to give support to cluster-bomb victims in Afghanistan, then logically those people of conscience must support the Taliban or Osama.
You blokes need a healthy dose of facts to loosen your constipation of opinionated prejudice.
harry, harry, harry, I’m having an organism!!!!
Yep, HC there is a reward, it’s watching guys like you justify the Govt’s continued doggerel. It’s comedy gold you know.
Someone has to come to Harry’s defence.
No one (well, no one sensible) is going to deny that the case is highly embarrassing for the Federal Police/DPP and that Haneef deserves sympathy for being charged in the first place in these circumstances.
However, here are some points getting no consideration in the blast of heat coming off this thread:
1. There is nothing inherently questionable about what Andrews has been saying all the time – that the visa decision is made on different criteria than the criminal action. The same thing happens all the time in law, and not infrequently gives results which may seem odd at first. The best example is criminal injury compensation cases, where a person acquitted of a crime can still find another court deciding that, by virtue of the application of a lesser standard of proof (“balance of probabities” as opposed to “beyond reasonable doubt”) the victim did in fact suffer at the hands of the accused. Remember OJ Simpson? The same thing happens here all the time, yet if you apply the same logic (or rather, lack of logic) that most commenters are using here, these cases must be some type of travesty of justice.
2. OK, maybe your argument is that Andrews just shouldn’t trust any evidence the Federal Police have put to him about Haneef, seeing how they over-reached when they decided to charge. But, apart from those who see the evil wedging hand of Howard behind everything everyone associated with the government does, other calmer people might reflect that of course it is likely that there is other evidence, supplied via the British police who have doubtless been briefing the Feds here about what they think about Haneef and how close he seems to have been with his terrorist doctor relatives.
3. Those of you who want all such evidence to be fully aired in public – I can think of many practical reasons for not doing that, and those who are dismissing such objection to disclosure are being very idealistic, but with the luxury of not personally having to make decisions in cases where it could well be very line ball. We are, after all, talking non-citizens who want to come here (admittedly, in the case of applications for work visas, for reasons of mutual benefit to both the applicant and Australia.) We are not talking about people who have an inherent right to be here. If a government makes a decision on a visa that errs on the side of caution (for the protection of its own citizens) on a matter like this, well, I for one can’t get too worked up about it, and don’t want to see the government having to waste time justifying every such decision to satisfy the the politically excitable. What’s more, I am betting you would find a Labor government having the exact same attitude on the issue of disclosure of the evidence, and that is fine by me.
4. Kelty seems to be blaming the DPP (presumably, some lawyers at the lower levels) for initially advising that the charge could run. The DPP in response seemed to be saying that it was really up to the Feds to satisfy themselves that they did have the evidence. Neither is saying they acted because they were under political pressure to do so. The reason to believe there was no political interference is that all government politicians could see that any attempt at it would be ridiculously easy for Kelty, or anyone else in the Federal Police who took offence at being pressured, to leak to the media.
As for those who argue that it is would not be direct interference, just subtle pressure: well it is a nice conspiratorial view, but has the problem of being more faith based than founded on actual evidence.
5. Those who think that this case shows that there should be no pre-charge detention laws are showing that they don’t take terrorism seriously. Of course there were circumstances here for detaining a departing doctor relative of doctor terrorists in England. Of course the international aspects of it, and the length of time it could take to check information on computers, and perhaps traceable through ISP’s etc, meant in this case that it would take days or weeks to conduct. The problem arose from the decision to prefer a charge without adequate evidence: it has nothing to do with the legitimacy of pre-charge detention when it is warranted for investigative purposes.
The British laws seem likely going to be amended to work in a way where there can be 28 days of non court supervised detention, which to my way of thinking, is worse than no limited detention but supervised by the court from the start. At the very least, it shows that our laws are not draconian by the standards of a Western Labor government.
6. I think there is some, relatively limited, political fallout for the government because of it being seen to be Kelty’s protector (eg, leaping into criticism of the defence leak of the record of interview with too much enthusiasm.) It wouldn’t hurt the government to be seen to be critical of Kelty every now and then, and especially for it to get uptight about the leaking of information. (If it is ever shown that the government itself was leaking police suspicions, that would be very damaging.)
On the other hand, I for one think there was a danger in the media gamesmanship the defence also played had a chance of backfiring and making it harder for the police and DPP to back down. Oh I know, people will argue it was only because of public pressure that the decision was reviewed so quickly. Maybe, but I see dangers in going down a path where all terrorism investigation cases are automatically treated as fights to be conducted via the media and the court of media manipulated public opinion.
OK fire away. I will probably be too busy on domestic duties to respond tomorrow, but may if provoked enough. Apologies for length too, but then its only Harry and me taking anything like a contrary view to every other post here.
Steve,
Regarding your first point (different criteria for different legal decisions), I agree that this is not generally a problem. In this specific case, the problem is that Andrews’ actions were taken:
(i) while the criminal justice process was taking place, so that the media coverage of his decision regarding the visa could have influenced the outcome of any jury trial, had the case proceeded; and
(ii) seemingly in response to a decision in the criminal process that Andrews and the Government did not approve of (i.e., the granting of bail).
OJ was first tried and acquitted in a criminal court; the civil process commenced only after the criminal verdict was received. The criminal and immigration processes were confounded in the Haneef case so that each was potentially affecting the other. What’s more, I think that the potential bias and pressures associated with canceling the visa during the criminal process were obvious and that the decision was a tactical one – making it seem that there was a strong case against Haneef and that he would likely be convicted is a good way to try to nudge him toward a guilty plea.
By the way, am I the only one who finds it interesting that there’s an inverse relationship between the time people spent talking to the press when the case looked to be going forward and the amount of explanations offered and responsibility taken by the same people? Bugg and his office (rightly) were not talking to the press but most fingers are now pointing at them; Keelty pretty much just had to stand beside Bugg (and he managed to nudge a bit of the blame across to the DPP as well); Andrews is deferring to the Solicitor-General’s advice; Howard is conveniently out of the country; and Ruddock hasn’t popped his head up at all yet.
Steve,
Re. your point 2, the British police sent an officer over to interview Haneef. She went back home, reported her findings and they lost interest in pursuing Haneef, a position they hold today: he is not a person of interest to them.
I agree that the initial arrest was probably justified. The connections – family, university, personal contacts, profession (a doctor colleague of a group of doctors who had tried to set off a bomb) – plus Haneef’s one-way ticket and sudden departure needed investigation.
It was only after the initial interviews that the case unravelled.
Andrews put the icing on the cake, using immigration laws for an improper purpose: keeping Haneef locked up when he had been bailed. There were any number of alternatives, including a control order, that could have been applied, but Andrews, seeing as Haneef came under his department’s jurisdiction, went for the easy option: withdrawl of visa on secret grounds. I’m sure he was very proud of himself and probably thought he’d get brownie points from Howard.
The sheer bitchiness of the government in this matter is what has raised the hackles of commenters here. The AFP is under a cloud, suspected of toadying to the executive. The DPP has blundered, but will not apologize. There are too many loose ends that will be swept away with the broom of secrecy.
The secrecy laws are designed to prevent either further or apprehended terrorist acts, not to protect bumbling coppers, ministers and prosecutors from their own mistakes.
The leaking – much of it wrong – turned this episode into a farce. “Agenda” on behalf of the AFP and/or DPP was in the air. Ruddock’s, Howard’s and Andrews’ comments made it plain this was being beaten up ibnto a political wedge against Labor (Andrews’ complaint today that Rudd did not take the bait like a good little Labor loser was proof of that).
I commend your attempt to take some heat out of the Haneef case, and you make some valid points (particularly about the need to investigate). But despite some things being done right, the general (and correct, in my opinion) view is that this has been a monumental stuff-up, compounded by unauthorised leaks, politicisation by senior minister and sheer bloody-mindedness on the part of the government.
Really, do you think that if they were all truly proud of what they had done that they wouldn’t be blaming others? AFP blames DPP. DPP blames AFP. Minister blames DPP and AFP. Howard blames anyone else but himself. Keelty said today the investigation had been well-conducted, but his blame game protestations proved that in his heart he felt otherwise.
This case was politicised from the beginning, with selective leaks to the press by the AFP, probably under their own initiative, but with approval from the government, given the silence of ministers at the time. We did not hear much about a “fair trial” from the government when the headlines were ramping up the “doctor terriorists” scare, because it pressed all the right electoral buttons. There should be an inquiry into how and why this information was released to the press, and Keelty should be called to testify on behalf of his officers.
Then there was a cabinet meeting immediately prior to Andrew’s revoking Haneef’s visa. No doubt that this order came from the top, and anyone who thinks Andrew’s was acting on his own initiative is in fairy land. Howard and Ruddock gave this order, and that’s why Andrew’s is now stuffed. He literally does not know what to do, because no-one is giving him orders any more, and he is left carrying the can. The SG advice he is seeking is about how much damages are possible and the consequences for his own position, not about whether his decision was wrong. Andrews credibility and competence is shot.
The DPP is responsible for the gross incompetence of its own prosecutor(s), who did not properly assess the evidence before leading wrong information in the court. As the former SG Griffith said on Lateline last night, the DPP should have gone back into court and admitted its errors so that the court process could have been properly completed in order to release Haneef lawfully from the charges with his reputation legally restored. DPP Bugg should resign because he failed in his duty of proper supervision of his own officers, and the prosecutors responsible should be sacked for incompetence.
I hope Haneef stays in Australia and demands a formal apology from the government, a proper cleansing of his police record, and substantial financial damages for the ruination of his reputation.
Me too. I also hope he gets an apology from the AFP, the DPP and the Government for the mistakes, his lengthy detention, the various leaks about alleged “evidence” which are now proven to be incorrect. But the track record of this Govt on apologies is atrocious, I think they have deleted them from their repertoire.
Talk about turning to custard. FPP & DPP now blame each other and the Ministers are now saying “its out of their hands” – except for Andrews, who is caught in no mans land.
I don’t buy the line that the AFP just happened to leak. They are being scapegoated. Ministers (and the PM) have been driving the commentary on this case and the approach.
Public confidence on the use of the anti-terrorist laws and the actions of the Governement, the AFP and the DPP is at a low. We need an independent investigation into the effectiveness of these laws, ministerial involvement and interference, and the conduct of the case.
Hey, two very calmly stated arguments in response to mine. It’s better than I expected!
My point in raising the 2 legal standards was more to do with the people arguing now (and there are many on this thread) that it is clear that the visa decision must be changed because no criminal charge is proceeding.
The issue as to the timing of Andrew’s decision: I actually don’t entirely discount criticism of that, yet nor do I think it was as dire an action as many people argue.
Andrew’s action yesterday in releasing Haneef into non-custodial detention seems a pretty bizarre way to indicate consistency. The Australian this morning is criticising him for this. I don’t understand why Andrews would not require Haneef to go into custodial detention in Villawood, as consistent with his original decision, and promise a review of the bail decision within a week, when everyone has caught their breath.
It is also funny to think that Mick Kelty is claimed this morning to be angry with Andrews for a decision which “both complicated and inflamed” the case against Haneef. It seems indeed a case of the Feds blaming absolutely everyone else.
To my mind one of the most egregious political acts committed in this whole farce was Ruddock’s attack on barrister Keim for leaking the transcript of interview. He was vigorously defended:
From the age:
How dare any uppity lawyers interfere in the Government (and Government Gazette’s) right to railroad some “Wog” into jail???
How dare anyone interfere with the Government’s right to overturn a bail decision, pervert and subvert the cause of justice in so coincidently withdrawing a visa: not for deportation purposes but to heap more implied wrongdoing on Haneef and keep the pot boiling to attract more Joe Sixpack voters???
How dare Peter Beattie call the Government’s poodle, the AFP, Keystone Cops???
How dare the Oz public wake up (at last) to the wedge???
Lastly, as mentioned above, the utility of Ratty having ratted off to some other part of the world.
Come back soon and face your medicine Ratty, a “liberal” dose of Ratsack.
Steve everyone is blaming everyone else and not a single soul is taking responsibility for anything, which is one of the reasons so many people are incredibly pissed off with the way the government has handled the whole exercise.
My anger has always been directed far more at the government than the AFP and DPP. I have no doubt the latter have only done what their ministers wanted. After 11 years it would not have required explicit instructions.
You refer to ‘the problem of being more faith based than founded on actual evidence.’ This unfortunately is how we are expected to accept the power of morally vacuous people like Kevin Andrews to make decisions affecting other people’s fundamental liberties. They are not required to disclose what evidence, if any, they they have relied upon nor are they required to justify their decisions. There are compelling reasons why we don’t normally let the executive government make those kinds of non-reviewable decisions and those reasons aren’t somehow vitiated just because Howard screeches LOOK OVER THERE! TERRORISTS!!
Nor are these laws the worst of their kind, nor are they restricted to ‘non-citizens’. The laws under which people can be detained for questioning and prohibited from disclosing the fact are even more repugnant; likewise the increasing tendency to introduce laws that deny people being interrogated the right to silence.
So damn right I’m angry and passionate about these issues. Over the years a lot of people have suffered and died to secure the current balance of rights as between the individual and the state and I’m not about to supinely let creeps like Howard’s mob upset it under the cloak of a nebulous ‘War on Terror’ that they predict will go on for generations.
Yes, the Great WOT is quite handy isn’t it Ken? Useful for all sorts of things really. It just goes to show that with a careful campaign and the right brand management the mug-punters can be sold anything.
BTW Harry I know it must be emotionally satisfying to slag off the leftie masses who have the hide to stress about bleeding heart stuff like Magna Carta but vulgar abuse isn’t as easy as it looks and I don’t think you’ve quite got the hang of it.
Drawing analogies between principled conviction and dementia or sexual arousal has been done to death and your efforts are, well, clumsy, to be frank. But the real howler was a terminological error that would cause a bunch of year 5 boys to collapse with helpless mirth – it’s known as an ‘own goal’, I believe. It invites irrelevant but hilarious comments about how familiar you are with the process of procreation, and even inquiries about the extent to which you personally have experienced organisms.
As a mature adult I will naturally refrain from making such comments
but others may not be so generous.
One thing’s looking more probable: it could be a long while until the government tries to beat up another “Terrorism” scare.
I think they might have shot their bolt on this one. If the next couple of polls tank for them, terrorism is off the Christmas list.
Then again, they’ve done so many stupid things in recent months you can’t write off their idiocy credentials just yet.
Sit back Ken and savour the prospect of a public apology from high government circles.
I think it will be a long wait AB. If the history of this government teaches us anything, it’s that responsibility is off the agenda and apologies are a no-go zone.
The formua for Haneef has been established over the past week. The issue will be smothered under a truckload of mealy-mouthed phrases like ‘simply acting on advice’, ‘ongoing investigation’, and ‘national security reasons’.
And then we have this marvellous piece of obsfucation from Damian Bugg:
Getting an apology out of this crew will be like trying to prise Hyacinth from Kirribilli House.
This is a light rewrite of an earlier post of mine. Government apologists have not acknowledged the corrupt level of complicity of Andrews and Ruddock in the matter of Haneef.
1. Ruddock and Andrews claimed that they had much more on Haneef than was revealed during Haneefâ??s bail hearing.
2. By providing insufficient supporting evidence the prosecution failed to have Haneef remanded.
3. There was therefore a choice made by these ministers to withhold some incriminating evidence regarding Haneef.
4. This decision to withhold was justified on the grounds of â??national securityâ??.
This statement of the facts raises some very interesting and precise questions of fact:
1. Who made the decision to withhold? How much imput was there from Ruddock and his political advisors. What did Ruddock know about the facts and how did he know them?
2. Did Ruddock and Andrews know more facts about Haneef than the AFP and the government legal team?
3. If the answer to q. 2 is â??yesâ??, then is this still the case?
4. If it is the case, then how does the Federal government justify its furtive approach to guarding Australiaâ??s national security? Does withholding information constitute hampering the AFP in their task of protecting national security?
5. If the answer to q. 2 is â??noâ??, then how did Ruddock know the answer is â??noâ???
6. A negative answer to q. 2 necessarily means that the Howard Ministry must accept some responsibility for Haneefâ??s bail hearing debacle, because if means that the Ministry and the AFP co-operated in being less than candid about evidence in a case that is vital to Australiaâ??s national security.
The Governmentâ??s incompetency, slackness, and disingenuousness has endangered us all.
And contrary to what Harry Clarke has alleged, Federal Government ministers have outed themselves meddling with the judicial process and prejudicing Dr Haneef’s right to a fair hearing.
Interesting question Katz. Except the great man himself said on Lateline the other night that the only thing he knew about the case was what he read in the newspapers.
Good to see the joint in such competent hands.
There is one small problem with that explanation Christine, it ia like the rest of their case and not in accord with the known facts.
These Ministers as well as Howard are on the National Security Committee too.
The arse covering is so deliciously self serving and ironic:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/free-at-last-charges-dropped-but-doubts-remain/2007/07/27/1185339257833.html?page=3
Keelty
So strong Mr Keelty, you’ve got a conviction right? Done your job, or the job Howard wanted you to do? (Or will Howard do the scapegoat job on you just to be even handed?)
Howard
Key decision to prosecute not your’s Mr Howard, in part or fully?
“Strengthen the legislation” ie abolish the exceptional circumstances negating the presumption against bail ? The High Court could have something interesting to say about the differentiation of the criminal law and bail’s ‘exceptional circumstances’ (allowable) but terrorist charges (not allowable). (Kirby ripping apart the gov counsel on that would be a sight to behold.)
Cops would just love that one too, charge common murderers under the anti-terrorist laws as well, lock’em up and throw away the keys. “No bail your honour” says PC31 “We caught another dirty one”.
No doubting who has ‘Maxwell’s silver hammer’ of injustice here. Speaking of presumptions, the presumption that Howard will pass anti-legislation primarily in the national interest is DEAD AND BURIED, in arguably the majority public mind now.
I suppose said “strengthening” could include automatic processing by a specially constituted Kangaroo Tribunal on Christmas Island, and pesky lawyers denied entry, due to “security issues”
One would have thought Ratty has had enough of legal people (including his own attack dogs) biting his ass for the last few weeks to want to stir up another equally smelly and reprehensible shitfight on civil liberties.
The Haneef case has exposed Howard like a shit scared rabbit pretending courage in a car’s headlights: a reprehensible, politically malodorous, malicious, opportunistic runt of the liberal party litter, who puts his political survival and legacy before any other consideration.
Anyone predicting the next polls?
I sure hope that Howard has another vote winning scheme up his sleeve because this one has been very entertaining. And I suspect that the lead actor Haneef has a settlement coming for his trouble that even Nicole Kidman would be happy with.
anti-”terrorist” legislation, that is.
After this exhibiton of stupidity and incompetence by most of the senior members of the Government Poll watchers might have to buy a magnifying glass to check the figures for the Government. My guess is the Government support will be heading towards being equal to their credibility in the handling of the Haneef case.
I read a story today that the libs have only managed to pick up votes from disaffected minor parties so far. My guess is they have just lost any gains made to date and then some.
Both Michael Kroger and Rod Cameron were claiming on Lateline last night that only the politcal elite were interested in this, and the vast majority of Australians couldn’t care less.
I hope to God that this deeply cynical view is incorrect. Otherwise there seem few limits to what the most incompetent government in Australia’s history will do in the name of WOT and re-election.
Rod Cameron did make the point that the government would have to shelve the terrorism wedge. I suspect they are right that many people (and I don’t buy the distinction between “the political class” and “real Australia” Cameron made which is actually an offensive one) might take a view that it’s better to err on the side of an effective presumption of guilt (which is a point one Minister actually made) but I suspect the total incompetence will have left a very negative impression. It’s also worth noting anecdotal evidence that many non-Anglo folks have been very disturbed and even frightened – particularly by Andrews’ decision. The Libs get their fair share of votes from many ethnic communities – a significant amount may shift.
Quiggin’s take:
http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2007/07/28/the-haneef-fiasco/
Might as well throw in a few criminal penalties for defense counsel making public information pertaining to their client. Definitely a national security matter.
I don’t know how many Hun readers class themselves as being in the ‘political class’, but their comments make interesting reading:
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/comments/0,22023,22143907-661,00.html
Blogocracy got over 200 comments on a Friday evening within hours of a post on Haneef, overwhelmingly anti-government. That implies the ‘political elite’ might be bigger than the pundits think.
Had a look at the Hun comments……not good for the Govt. No problem for the righties though, they’ll just dismiss it as the evil terrorist loving civil rights lobby commandeering the thread…..oh crap, I’m having another organism!
And interestigly enough not a peep from Blairzoid, Boltwit, or Acknuckle. Meanwhile the brave libertarians over at Catlaxatives continue to obsess about hot-button issues like Milton Friedman http://catallaxyfiles.com/
I think they realise the implications for the Howard government and are playing the part of the three wise monkeys, same as Hc was earlier. It is not fun to be a supporter of a Government as corrupt as this for people who have supported them over a long period of time.
Ninemsn ran a blog on this yesterday afternoon.
It received 330 comments in a little over 2 hours and closed off comments.
About 9.30pm I went back on to finish reading the comments and they had decided to add a further 50 comments.
It currently has 459 comments but they are saying that they are no longer taking comments. I wonder why?
Could it be that around 98.5% are scathing of the Government handling of the whole affair.
I think that with the level of comments on numerous blog sites on this, that more than the so-called “political elite” have major concerns over this issue.
But Cameron didn’t actually say “the political elite”, he said “the political class”, by which I took him to mean people who are engaged with political debate. Even to leave a comment on one of these “blogs” shows a level of concern and interest far in excess of that shown by the great majority of the population. It’s a self selected sample, and therefore an unrepresentative one. And it’s always worth remembering that those who are most likely to change their votes in marginal seats have been found by all the research to be those least interested in public affairs and news. I’d love it if there was a huge majority of Australians upset about the Haneef schemozzle, but it’s drawing a long bow indeed to think that there is.
I think there are polls due out on Monday morning so that will give us an indication .
Just as an interesting piece of anecdotal. People who have been to meetings around Brisbane in the past week have been amazed at the support for Haneef from people who have always taken a more hardline approach to social issues.
I think the fact that there is a doctor shortage and Indian doctors have answered the call is also playing more emotionally on people than had it been someone else in some other circumstance.
Just noticed a couple of intertesting articles on the “Government Gazette” web site.
It could appear that Paul Kelly and Shannahan must have been sitting at the same desk and looking across at each others computer screens while they were typing.
One could be excused for thinkimg that the two articles were written by the same person. Worthwhile checking out. Absolutely no mention of the Haneef fiasco in either.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22146017-11949,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22146019-11949,00.html
I think that would particularly be a factor here in Qld, steve, where there’s a lot of public awareness of it, and as we were saying at LP a while back, it would have been one of the reasons Beattie took the stance he did.
But don’t forget either the reports of patients refusing to be treated by Indian doctors at the Gold Coast hospital after all the terrorism headlines which the Courier-Mail went nutsoid with.
Actually, Scorpio, Kelly does mention Haneef at the end of the article.
While people may not be specifically interested in Haneef, it just adds to the negative smell surrounding the government – people flick on the news and think ohhhh the government is lying and screwing up AGAIN. I think issues like this add up to produce a general sense of ill-will that is greater than the sum of the ill-will produced by each individual issue. People will tolerate some level of dishonesty and incompetence, but after a threshold is reached they react against the government, not because they particularly care about one problem, but because of all of them all combined. You can’t just point to one survey and say ‘ohh look voters don’t care about that so there will be nil political fallout’.
Also worthwhile checking out is this article on the BBC News website .http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3917703.stm
The yanks have released the 9/11 report and this link has links to the full report.
I wonder if the Government and Opposition have taken the time to have a read after the last few days debacle.
Mark, sorry, must have skimmed through too quickly and missed it.
I don’t usually spend a great amount of time reading too much written by those two.
Sorry about the link not coming up in my last post. I will try again.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3917703.stm
No probs, Scorpio, and I think David is right – the killer impact for the government of this one is the perception of lying and total incompetence – rather than being seen by a majority as a civil liberties issue, it’s more likely to be seen along the lines of “how useless are this mob when it comes to national security really?”…
Ken writes:
“Everyone is blaming everyone else and not a single soul is taking responsibility for anything, which is one of the reasons so many people are incredibly pissed off with the way the government has handled the whole exercise”
Hear hear.
I reckon people are pissed because they’ve heard this sort of thing ad nauseam from the Government before.
Indeed, it seems to have been pretty much the standard response of the Howard Government to stuff-ups and people recall them doing exactly the same thing once the lid was blown on the “children overboard” beat-up; the non-existent weapons of mass destruction that led us into Iraq, the AWB bribery scandal, the whole “Workchoices will not make a single person worse-off” thing….. Baiscally, with everything that’s ever gone pear-shaped on their watch.
The only thing the Howard Government is prepared to take responsibility for is the one thing they’ve had bugger-all impact upon: The Economy.
Everything else is someone else’s fault, and has been since 1996.
Ken writes:
â??Everyone is blaming everyone else and not a single soul is taking responsibility for anything, which is one of the reasons so many people are incredibly pissed off with the way the government has handled the whole exerciseâ??
Evan, I think what you and Ken have expressed in your posts are basically what most of the posters have been most concerned about on sites such as Tim Dunlops’, SMH, Ninemsn and others that I have read.
The thing that surprised me so much was that, many of the posters were new to me. ie you get to know most of the regular posters on these sites and there were just so many that I had not come across before.
This was a real surprise as was the speed at which people were posting after 3.00pm when the announcement that the charges against Dr Haneef had been dropped. It showed that it had hit a nerve in the community and that people were concerned and had been following the issue very closely.
I don’t think that Cameron or Kruger have picked up on this at all.
I still disagree, Scorpio, not that it’s an issue which has exercised people a lot, but with the contention that you can infer anything from the (still very small) number of people who’ll take the time to make a comment on one of these sites to public opinion generally. As I said, I disagree with aspects of Cameron’s analysis (and Kroger is just a liberal shill) but I don’t believe we have any evidential warrant for making the assumptions you are making. I could be wrong, but we still can’t tell from the evidence you cite.
I think it’s safe to say that the Govt’s line about being the party of national security growups is now a joke. One so-called strength neutralised.
In fact despite Rudds general quiteude on this (something that’s turned out to be a wise move politically) he should now be able to paint the Govt as venal amateurs on NS.
Now it may be a bit premature to call the so called WoT over as a political tool, but it’s sure starting to look that way to me. Heck it’s got no bite in the US anymore. I guess the Spaniards were right to walk away from that silly game.
Oops, I just had another organism.
Andrews has just let Haneef go back to India. An elaborate escape from media ploy with decoy was used to make sure Haneef did not speak to anyone.
Phil, what’s your secret? I’d never have thought that RWDB blog/gers could prompt so much organismic activity!
You and I might both be right Mark.
I don’t think this issue is going to fade away from general discussion any time soon.
The political commentariat will see to that, especially now that the Civil Libertarians have got a issue close to their hearts to run on. http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/28/1990751.htm?section=justin
Haneef on the way home.
Link
Perhaps so, Scorpio, and incidentally I think Paul Kelly’s analysis on Rudd’s move to the right is onto something. Of course, we picked Rudd’s move to the right at LP six months before Kelly woke up to it!
Nah Phil, you have to understand exactly what the public are thinking when they tick the Howard box on polls on National Security.
They are not thinking Howard is making me safer from terrorists (every Iraqi report has blow that one away) and they are not thinking he has put into place infrastructure and technology to make me safer, the PS whistle blower on airport security blew that one away. On any cursory inspection of practical measures for NS any mug can see Howard mostly gets an ‘F’. Some overseas expert reports have proven this.
No, the one thing they think of when they tick Howard box for NS, is his being tough on refugees, specifically boat people. That a 180 man navy frigate has to continually patrol our northern waters at massive expense and falling crew morale (how many of the very specialised crew can look out for leaky wooden boats?), the off-shore detention centres and the new $500 million on Christmas Island (our Gitmo), even though they are horrendously expensive and ineffective and the continuous innuendo and demonisation of a certain race is why they tick the Howard box on NS.
Excellent work Kevin Andrews!
The people of Australia don’t deserve the truth.
Now we’ll just have to content ourselves with imagining the worst.
Of course, once he’s in India there should be nothing stopping him talking to the Indian media, so we can all read his story online. Who in the Australian media will reprint those stories, and who won’t?
One of the many benefits of ‘responsible’ government under the Crodent and his cronies Evan.
Can’t wait to see the little c**t’s response to this lot when he sneaks back into the country like some diseased sewer-rat.
60 minutes will fly to India and interview him in a nanosecond.
And there aint nuthin’ Andrews can do stop them.
Christine the prime minister’s not going to give a running commentary on every piddly matter that comes before a magistrate … and he’s not going to speculate about Dr Haneef’s lucky escape from justice, but if he receives advice that the laws against terrorism aren’t sufficiently strong, then he’ll make them stronger, so that terrorists can’t use loopholes to escape justice again, not that he has any comment on Dr Haneef of course, who is still entitled to a presumption of innocence despite the weight of evidence that the prime minister is advised exists.
The PM’s symptoms are now so pronounced, surely a clinical diagnosis can be established.
It would be a blessed relief if another GP on a visa were to arrange for his long overdue committal.
The Prime Minister should work hard to remind Australians that law enforcement authorities cannot be expected to be infallible in these complex matters.
And it behoves patriotic Australians to do their duty and to accept the law enforcement authorities’ statements as the truth.
Because in these times of terror Australians can be sure that someone, somewhere is trying to do them harm.
To express doubt about this fact simply emboldens the enemy.
And how do they propose to enforce that once he’s out of the country?
Who paid for the flight? I suspect that it won’t be ‘cattle class’.
Exactly, Gummo. At best they stall the news cycle for as long as it takes his plane to land in India.
“Immigration authorities had also made it a condition of Dr Haneef’s return to India that he did not speak to the media or allow his picture to be taken.
And how do they propose to enforce that once he’s out of the country?”
This is “the we will stuff your career son, if you speak up lad”, aspect. Where do you reckon he wants to work and continue to study, apart from India ?
I know the GG has a Asian correspondent based in Delhi…I wonder if he’ll be on to it?
Just saw a 60 minutes flash, they will have an interview with Haneef
Andrews is a bit late. Times of India has his photo from Brisbane airport.
Well as we know he’s leaving at about 11.55 tonight, you’d expect some enterprising news organisation to book a seat or two on the plane, wouldn’t you?
Story could be all done, dusted and emailed before they leave customs.
14 hours to Bombay
Looks like Andrews is suddenly getting pally with the Solicitor General in the past day or so. Seems to be setting him up to be a fall guy on judgment day if needed.
A blame shared is a blame halved apparently.
I’d love to know on what basis Andrews voted for this legislation in the parliament, if as Ministerr he can’t seem to work out what his responsibilities are under the Act.
That disgraced idiot Andrews should resign.
Are any RWDBs out there concerned that our Government’s primary interest in national security questions seems to be the politics of it?
Outraged when they cant get a wedge out of it – but when it gets down to actual policing – all over the shop, rushed, incompetent, and a complete laughing stock.
Sorry to be so long getting back to you on this one. Been to a BBQ.
Mark, what surprised me so much about both of these articles was that both of them were so far removed from the usual tripe bagging Rudd and extolling the virtues of Howard and crew.
They could reasonably be perceived as a fair analysis of the political climate from the time Rudd first assumed the leadership of the ALP up to the present.
If they continue along this vein in their political analysis and commentary, I might be encouraged to follow their future commentary during the rest of the campaign.
[link] [link]
Any stoppers at the BBQ?
Agreed, Scorpio, whatever has come over the GG crew the confrontation with reality has certainly done wonders for the quality of the analysis. That’s why I quoted at length from Shanahan in my post today.
Any stoppers at the BBQ?
I hope you are sitting down Mark?
Strangely enough, the subject of Dr Haneef took up quite a deal of the conversation.
One of the people present is a big wig in the FF Party and he was finding great difficulty in trying to find justification for the Governments convolutions.
Definitely one of the more interesting BBQ’s I have attended for a long time.
Well, there you go!
Just been catching up with the last few pages of posts on Tim Dunlop’s site.
Wow! The nutters are out in force with their bile in a big way. It makes for entertaining reading but also tends to be quite scary that such people are amongst us in the community and in some cases do have an ability to shape and influence public policy even if indirectly.
I just had a brief squizzy.
It rather goes to my point, though. The problem with “blogs” in the MSM (and I know Tim didn’t intend this with Blogocracy, but the threads that attract the most comments seem to have approached the norm of the form) is that they’re much more similar to those meaningless “polls” that newspaper sites run and tabloid tv shows do – that is to say, rather than developing an argument and holding a conversation, people just post as if to a bulletin board with their singular opinion. That’s why they’re a bit difficult to read as well. Because they don’t work like threads on blogs do – where trolls stand out – they’re quite open both to manipulation if someone who can mobilise a lot of people posts a link or sends round an email (and I’m sure both Labor and Liberal encourage youth party types to comment on these sites just as they used to urge them to ring talkback shows) and they don’t necessarily tell you that much about the weight of opinion on one side or other – as demonstrated by the rush of wingnut talking point comments recently posted on that thread.
Mark. One last post before bed.
Ninemsn have an article on Dr Haneef’s permit to travel home to India.
It looks as though Andrews is determined to drag the issue in the hope of some sort of electoral advantage no matter how small.
Mohamed Haneef was due to leave Australia on Saturday night but the Indian doctor’s work visa remains cancelled despite a terrorism-related charge against him being dropped.
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews on Saturday gave the go-ahead for Dr Haneef to return to India but refused to reinstate his visa.
Dr Haneef has vowed to continue to fight to have his visa reinstated in the hope he may one day even return to live and work in Australia, his lawyer said.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=280072
Yes, Scorpio, I’ve got to go watch my overnight dvd before I go to bed lest I end up with fines!
I’m not sure Andrews is still trying to get electoral advantage – I think he’s desparately trying to cover his tracks and failing.
There is no way that Andrews should be the lone fall guy, effectively taking one for the team. We shouldn’t forget that most of the bigwigs in Cabinet in the form of the National Secrurity Committee gave the big tick to cancel Haneef’s visa and keep him in the nick, overriding the magistrate’s decision to grant bail.
According to the AG’s webiste (‘Achieving a Just & Secure Society’): http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/RWP6F6F82CE6A34F30BCA2571FE00074E1F
So:
1) Can we just dispense with the fiction right away that the decisions in this matter are in no way ‘political’.
Indeed, could Haneef’s case be in any way considered ‘strategically sigificant’, or a “crisis”, or in any way related to the “medium-to long term relevance” of Australia’s national security interests? Hardly.
2) Andrews took the matter before Howard, Ruddock, Downer and co to get their approval and political cover for himself. Bad luck mate.
The line being run by Howard that “we discussed it and it was discussed at a meeting of the National Security Committee of cabinet, but the final decision was taken by Kevin Andrews” (much in the manner that one might discuss the weather or the kids soccer training) is too cute by half.
Of course this doesn’t take into account the flood of leaks and comment emanating from the offices of senior ministers and god knows where else, designed to spread blatant lies about the case for no other purpose than to blacken the name of a man we now know to be innocent (last week’s yarn involving flying lessons, September 11, and the Gold Coast building was pretty good.)
All the same, though, it seems that Howard is still going to have a crack at making this a wedge issue by “strengthening” the terrorism laws. And I wouldn’t be at all surprised to hear yet more dark mutterings of the many dangerous and suspicious things they couldn’t tell us for “national security reasons.”
And if anyone’s interested the London Times is taking comments http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2154267.ece
Andrews is still and is clinging to his ridiculous mud throwing:
The Age is calling it for what it is:
I think that the international fallout will haunt Australia for some time to come. Like on Kyoto, Australia is seen to play domestic political games on mattters of human rights (including the long term demonisation and incarceration of asylum seekers) and on matters of great import such as climate change. The Howard government doesn’t represent Australia, they push their own lines and those of their vested interests.
Howard, Ruddock and Andrews are equally responsible for this debacle. Rudd is implicated too for choosing to play (small target) politics rather than taking a stand.
The big question is, what does the average punter think?
The big question is, what does the average punter think?
Annabelle Crabbe and the other lady on Insiders this morning: damages people’s faith in National Security.
Shorter Gerard Hendo: No effect.
Shorter shorter Hendo: A Rudd government would have done exactly the same.
The shorter, shorter, shorter, shorter right brought to you by Tony Abbott, Hendo etc. Rudd is like Howard. Repeat and rinse. Right up to election day. I think it’s safe to say that the right now has the talking point it thinks will resonate.
What they don’t seem to reaslise is that folks don’t care, they just want Howard and his gang of ministerial toadies out.
Poor possums, it’s all they have left.
I’m in Perth so we’ve yet to be graced with the luminous presence of Gerard “not a rightwinger” Henderson.
I do hope he’s sticking to his line from this week’s 7.30 Report: ‘Nothing to see here people. People get fitted up for crimes every day of the week. All perfectly ridgy-didge’.
The poor old luvvies at The Age forever on the prowl sniffing out “racism.” Newsflash Komrades, the Haneef case was not about race; it was about ideology. Islam.
The Indians know a hell of a lot more than we do about the reality of the Muslim menace.
Wonder if the sixty Minutes genius’ thought to ask the Doctor what drugs have put that psychotic grin on his face after all that we have seen from the Immigration Dept. treatment of people being deported on Four Corners in the past.
Matt Price gets it right in his op-ed today.
Think the government could sink any lowere? Think again!
Andrews this morning:
Really, they’re quite lovely people.
I’ll concern myself with his visa issues when he applies to have it reissued.
Keep in mind that several of his contemporaries were refused visas in the first place.
His contemporaries? Oh I get it … some people borne around 1980 were refused visas so anyone around that age is suss.
If nothing else, this incident is demonstrating that rabid wingnuts have no intellectual self-respect whatsoever. They will come out with any idiocy to try to defend the indefensible.
I better calm down, I’m close to organisming.
BTW Andrews is a complete grub.
.
Be very concerned then because the application is already before the court and set down for August the eighth.
John G, you need to get out more, have some ‘organisms’ with four Muslim wives, perhaps visit the theatre:
http://www.wogproductions.com/reviews.htm
We know that for many on the right, going ‘wog’ busters is de rigueur, but hasn’t the recent episode been illustrative, of … something?
BTW, you also need to read Robert Pape “Dying to Win” –it’s ideological nationalism, not religion that drives ‘terrorist’ attacks in the vast majority of cases.
Which reminds me, I must email Michael Moore with the title of the next episode of Farenheit 9/11:
When, oh when, are the patriotic RWDBs of Australia going to start demanding from the supine Howard government passage of the Islam (Suppression) Act 2007?
Don’t they know it’s our only hope of preserving Civilisation?
orgasm
Please Harry, not here
Andrews, you piece of f’n dirt.
Anyway! Good news is: this government just isn’t very competent on national security issues.
And there goes one of two thin threads still keeping those worthless shitstains in office.
But don’t worry, Howard apologists like hc and satp will defend anything his government does with their last er.. keystroke.
and with their last er..LNP ‘organism’
Wash your mouth out with soap Adrian. Then give yourself a good flogging.
Then copy & paste evidence to back up your claim that I am a “Howard Apologist”.
Somewhere along the line you may also like to get your hand off it.
You ain’t the brightest bulb in the chandelier Adrian, that is obvious from your postings, comprehension ain’t your strong point, but fair suck of the sav eh.
Jeez, the swing’s gotta to be on when even steve at the pub won’t put his hand up for Howard.
I think that little quote tells us all that we need to know about your level of intelligence, satp.
Judging from that, you’re the match in the box that resolutely refuses to light.
But keep on with the keystroking, I’m sure it’s pretty organismic for you.
And if you think I’m going to waste time trawling through the detritus that passes for your commentary, think again fern boy.
That satp denies he is an apologist for the Rodent, now that is funny.
Adrian, I’ll take that as you conceding your error.
Gaz, how about you copy & paste evidence of your claim? Wbb too. Crikey what’s on, a new batch of Ice on the streets or something?
You have made a statement, either back it up,
Or be like Adrian, & back down.
SATP how about you explain what that gibberish about Haneef’s contemporaries being refused visas was all about?