Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

..is Brisbane lawyer Peter Russo who must be warmly congratulated.. Overall, criminal lawyers and barristers do an outstanding job.

Thank God for our courts as well, and certainly journalist Hedley Thomas demonstrated that even News Ltd journos can do a great job.

I rather like the Full Court's judgement, now that I've had a chance to read it (only skipped the boring bits, honest).

One reason is that it rests on a principle I approve of, and that I used (or a slight variation of it) in what’s changed about me? to argue the illegality of the invasion of Iraq. (At I'll have a go, Justin and Was it legal?.) The principle is stated in the judgement as "It is an important principle that Acts should be construed, where constructional choices are open, so as not to encroach upon common law rights and freedoms". But I prefer this version, that they quote, just because of the language:

It is in the last degree improbable that the legislature would overthrow fundamental principles, infringe rights, or depart from the general system of law, without expressing its intention with irresistible clearness; and to give any such effect to general words, simply because they have that meaning in their widest, or usual, or natural sense, would be to give them a meaning in which they were not really used.

The discussion from 105 - 113 is worth reading.

It is also a very sensible judgement. It is about what is called a "character test". The judges find, reasonably, that it is a test of character. Not just because of the label, but because of its purpose and context, and because of the parliamentary debates, which clearly indicate the legislature's intent. They also find that simple association is not enough to find a want of character - there must be further indications that go to the nature of the association.

Andrews had available to him, on the public record and according to the original judge, matters which he could have used to argue those "further indications". (Strictly, it's not "argue", more like to arrive at a state of mind - but are we strong enough to explore the depths of his mind?) It's a puzzle why they didn't use them. I'm a bit inclined to incompetence more than conspiracy. To the extent they thought, it was probably that an association is an association, second cousins, done! They were under time pressure.

Just one last reason why I like the judgement: in the discussion of the parliamentary debates that show the legislature's intent, they quote (soon to be ex-) Senator Bartlett. He should be proud.

ASIO gets leave to appeal in Parkin case. The SMH headline calls it an ASIO win, but that is because "Next step in Scott Parkin case" doesn't make a very exciting headline. It will probably be at the High Court sooner or later. It was always going to be appealed.

The courts seem to be very busy today. Probably trying to clear the decks before a lazy January.

Fiona: I'm looking forward to the AWB criminal prosecutions in February.

Evans has closed the Nauru prison, given permanent residence to Tony Tran after 5.5 years of illegal detention and being almost killed in Baxter, now he is saying Haneef can simply come back.

Andrews of course wants him to appeal but Andrews broke the law and four senior judges have ruled as such.   Andrews would do well to shut up.

The judgement is at Minister for Immigration & Citizenship v Haneef [2007] FCAFC 203.

Fiona: Thank you, Mark. 

From ABC Online nine minutes ago:

The Full Bench of the Federal Court has upheld a Brisbane judge's earlier decision to reinstate former terrorism suspect Mohammed Haneef's work visa.

Former immigration minister Kevin Andrews appealed to the Federal Court's full bench after Justice Jeffery Spender ruled in favour of the Indian doctor.

This morning the Federal Court found in favour of Justice Spender's earlier decision and dismissed the former minister's appeal.

The decision was handed down in Melbourne while Dr Haneef's legal team watched via video link in Brisbane.

Dr Haneef was detained by Australian Federal Police for 12 days in July before being charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation by giving his mobile phone to his cousin who was accused of being involved in the failed UK bomb attacks.

Those charges were later dropped.

Mr Andrews had revoked Dr Haneef's visa on the grounds he failed a character test.

This year the Gold Walkley was awarded to Hedley Thomas of the Australian for his reporting of the Mohammed Haneef case. In his acceptance speech, Thomas

praised the lawyers acting for Haneef, the solicitor Peter Russo and the barrister Stephen Keim. In July Keim had in effect turned the case against Haneef around by giving Thomas a transcript of the record of interview of his client conducted by the Australian Federal Police.

And here's the chilling part of the Gold Walkley winner's remarks: "And I believe that every journalist in this room should understand that the Australian Federal Police and its Commissioner Mick Keelty is still trying to punish Stephen Keim for bringing out the truth."

A brief reminder of the state of play: AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty has complained to the Legal Services Commissioner in Queensland about Mr Keim’s conduct. Under the rules of the Queensland Bar Association, a barrister is prohibited from publishing material concerning current proceedings except in limited circumstances (e.g., providing copies of pleadings or court documents which are in the public domain). It should be noted that there is no equivalent rule affecting solicitors in the Queensland Law Society’s code of conduct. So, the Bar Association is investigating and will report in due course to the Legal Services Commissioner. The Bar Association, the Law Society, the Australian Lawyers Alliance and the Queensland Council for Civil Liberties have all made statements supporting Keim.

I consider it deplorable that Commissioner Keelty’s embarrassment at the incompetence of his force should have led to what Richard Ackland properly characterises as a “vengeful complaint”. However, there may be some light – even some accountability – about to be shed on this affair. From yesterday’s Age:

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says the government is seeking advice on how to conduct an official investigation into the handling of former terrorism suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef.

Mr Rudd said Labor would make good on its pre-election commitment to establish a judicial inquiry into the case but did not yet know when one would be started.

He denied the government was "raking over the coals" and said the inquiry was necessary to ensure anti-terrorism legislation was kept accountable.

"What we're on about is establishing the facts," Mr Rudd told reporters in Brisbane.

"We want to make sure that with these tough anti-terrorism laws that we've got in Australia that we've got the proper institutional arrangements necessary for their enforcement and the proper checks and balances as well."

Let's hope that any enquiry also investigates Commissioner Keelty's actions concerning Mr Keim.

MR3107

19 November 2007

Law Council Calls for AFP to Answer on Haneef

The Law Council is calling for answers as to whether or not AFP officers lawfully discharged their functions under the Commonwealth Crimes Act in relation to the Mohamed Haneef case.

On 2 November the Law Council wrote to AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty asking nine pertinent questions about the conduct of the AFP in the Haneef case.  The letter is now being publicly released.  The Law Council’s questions have not yet been answered.

Law Council President Ross Ray QC said, “Although the AFP has indicated an intention to reply, thus far the only responses the Law Council has received from the AFP have been directed at delaying the publication of the Law Council’s letter.”

“Australians deserve answers to the questions posed by the Law Council, and many more beyond”.

“It has become clear that our anti-terror laws, while draconian in certain respects, are only part of the problem. The source of the danger is not only what those laws say but what people, including AFP officers, think they say - we need to learn from the Haneef and ul-Haque cases”, Mr Ray said.  

The Law Council feels that law enforcement agencies, like the AFP, have been encouraged by sweeping anti-terror laws and the enthusiastic and uncritical support of the Federal Government to use their authority and resources inappropriately in a ‘win at all costs’ way.

The actual details of the law are ignored and calamitous results for ordinary people are only too apparent.

“It has become increasingly important to hold an independent, transparent and broad ranging inquiry into these matters and law enforcement culture.” Mr Ray concluded.

The Law Council’s letter to the AFP Commissioner is available at:

www.lawcouncil.asn.au/ltr_LCA_AFP_Nov07.pdf  

Terror case thrown out:

A high profile terror case was abandoned before it got to trial today after a judge found that an ASIO officer had kidnapped and falsely imprisoned a young medical student, Izhar ul-Haque.

Mr ul-Haque's lawyer, Adam Houda, later accused authorities of launching a politically motivated and "moronic prosecution" against his client.

In a scathing judgment, NSW Supreme Court Justice Michael Adams said one ASIO officer had committed "the crime of false imprisonment and kidnap at common law" against Mr ul-Haque in a deliberate attempt to coerce answers from him.

He said this misconduct meant subsequent police records of interview with Mr ul-Haque were inadmissible as evidence.

The judge's findings forced the Crown to withdraw its case against Mr ul-Haque, just before a trial jury was to be empanelled.

Refugee Action Coalition spokesman Ian Rintoul said "Refugees haven't been at the centre of this election campaign but the government is still blowing their racist dog-whistles over the issue," Mr Rintoul said.

"From the deportation of Chinese asylum seekers, to the Haneef scandal and cover-up, to (Immigration Minister) Kevin Andrews' racist restriction of African refugees, the federal government has been vigorously playing the race card just as it did in previous elections."

Mr Rintoul branded Foreign Minister Alexander Downer hypocritical for declaring the government would prioritise Burmese refugees in the wake of the military crackdown in Burma.

Yet the government had left seven Burmese refugees to languish on Nauru for more than a year and had done nothing to bring them to Australia, he said.

A large number of Sri Lankans also remain on Nauru despite having had their refugee claims approved.

"The seven Burmese and seventy-two Sri Lankan asylum seekers on Nauru are an ongoing reminder of the horrors of the government's Pacific solution and the unfinished business that the refugee movement has with the Howard government," Mr Rintoul said.

To make sure we don't forget the Howard governments treatment of refugees, the Refugee Action Coalition will target Howard's launch in Brisbane. It is time Australians stood up and told Howard just what we think of his Pacific Solution.  

 

 A lenghty extract, but it's worth it.  I hope it's the clarion call to get these issues out in the open before the election

Yet the past week or two have produced reminders of several cases that should provoke more debate about misuse of executive powers under draconian security and immigration laws that are also reshaping Australia.

A former chief justice of the High Court, Sir Gerard Brennan, has spoken out at this point in the election campaign about the inevitability of injustice when power is exercised without proper judicial review. More evidence of this has emerged in recent weeks, starting with the cases of Guantanamo Bay detainees Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks, Australian citizens who were effectively put beyond the law for several years in US military detention. The Government denies reports that Vice-President Dick Cheney arranged a political fix that resulted in Hicks being jailed in Australia, and barred from speaking publicly, until after the election. Yet the former chief prosecutor in the case, Colonel Mo Davis, resigned, citing continual, high-level political interference.

Other cases involve Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef, US peace activist Scott Parkin and Iraqi refugees Mohammed Sagar and Mohammad Faisal, who fell foul of ministerial and security assessments and were unable to properly defend themselves against a state that withheld material on which it relied.......
 

Attorney-General Philip Ruddock suggested on Friday that established relationships with security agencies meant a Coalition government was better able to respond to threats than a Labor government. But what if some aspects of close relationships have become unhealthy, as the above cases and the broader political misuse of intelligence to justify a disastrous war in Iraq suggest? Labor, which at first supported the actions against Dr Haneef, says a judicial inquiry is required.

The Age would go further and argue that the next government of Australia cannot be allowed to ignore the other injustices of recent years. All arose from a lack of ministerial accountability and judicial oversight of harsh security and immigration laws, which both sides of politics supported in response to public fears. Not only is injustice almost inevitable, but political interference and opportunism are eroding public confidence in agencies entrusted with keeping them secure.

For some reason the thought's finally just struck me that if Cheney's sticky fingers have been involved in the Hicks and Parkin cases, is there any chance he messed with Haneef?  That NBC story denying that Haneef was planning to infiltrate US cities for bomb attacks was probably useful to Dick in the run-up to 9/11.

Come to think of it, we still haven't been told who in the White House was responsible for the leak and subsequent early transmission of the Osama 9/11 video while Bush was in Sydney for APEC.  Anyone care to place bet that it's not Cheney?

The point I'm trying to make that if Australian civil liberties are being compromised by an international political figure with such an increasingly nefarious reputation, then the problems the Age elaborates on extend much further.  Given the commercial influence that Cheney has had on infrastructure and defence in this country, an addition of selling the country's ethical soul in the cases of Parkin, Hicks and Haneef creates a picture of a country "owned" by one man.  Is Australia Dick's "spoils of war?"

I know this sounds over the top but given the way things are going the possibility is well worth considering.

It was Indian doctors at the Mersey who were in danger of losing their jobs after Abbbott screwed up as well.

Now every time Howard wants to kick the states about medical care they can kick back about his destruction of the overseas doctors program for the sake of a three card trick for the election.

The anger from the 250,000 strong Indian community including about 8,000 in Howards own seat could explain why his primary vote has dropped to 46%.

Those of us with the smarts handling this pack of clowns knew it was all a set up and if you check in India it is a growing scandal again.

The number of overseas doctors seeking to work in Australia has fallen 90 per cent because of the federal government's handling of the case against former suspected terrorism supporter Mohamed Haneef, a medical association warns.

The Overseas and Australian Medical Graduates Association (OAMGA), in a joint statement with the United Indian Associations (UIA) group, said the massive drop in the number of doctors seeking temporary visas to work in Australia was exacerbating the existing health crisis.

The number of overseas doctors has fallen sharply because of the Howard governments handling of the Haneef case. We are all suffering from more Howard incompetence. 

Thanks Mary J regarding the Parkin news!!  Woohoo!! But if the Age is right ASIO's going to keep this dog chasing its tail forever. They'd already self-exonerated themselves, and while it might be fair enough to say that a security mob would compromise its power-base by being forcibly accountable (not that I think so) the very fact that the information they'd be forced to divulge might reduce their credibility to tatters renders this approach akin to the long-running argument (everyone heard Howard use it in the debate?) that the loss of face for the Americans in pulling out of Iraq is justification for staying there. 

This lot are avoiding being exposed for extremely shoddy workmanship, just as Andrews has regarding Haneef.

Ruddock has no choice but appeal.  Especially as the Parkin case has such a staunch group of followers in the US.  And if you think the Indian reaction to Haneef is bad, wait for the US rumblings hit the fan after the Parkin paperwork is out.  How America will see it is as a case of a foreign government badly mistreating one of its citizens in order to appease the increasingly unpopular Cheney.  And it still could happen before the federal election.  Wishful thinking..

The thing is that by appealing Ruddock will in fact be further tarnishing ASIO's reputation  by rendering its modus operandi politically malleable.  How are they going to argue against Downer's campaign to empower the AFP when they've been so stupid?  If both organisations' self-assessments continue to be contrary to those of the judicial system, how long can they be allowed to consider themselves as our security guardians?

If Rudd wanted to play some interesting chess he could promise to  instate the Australian Department of Homeland security as the co-ordinator and supervisor of intelligence and counter terrorism measures. How could Howard complain if Labor used the same methodology of his good buddy Dubya?

Poor old ASIO.  Damned if you don't, damned if you do, some days.

Haneef and Parkin, what a pair of cards.  Electoral  Blackjack!  Yeah.. tell me I'm dreamin'.

I reckon someone has planted a drug in the hair dye used by these 2 hopeless vanity ridden dummies - Keelty and Andrews - just as bleach eventually ate away at Jean Harlow's brain. These 2 are facing jail if the alleged conspiracy between the AFP and the Immigration department to pervert the course of justice is proved to be true.

Margo: They're not dummies, they're unethical, to the core. Let's hope Rudd wins and has the guts to hold his judicial inquiry. Not just to nail the culprits, but to clean out the casual lies and distortions in the higher echelons when it comes to criminal investigations and prosecutions which politcians want to make mileage out of or are themselves the subject of. The inquiry should make strong recommendations to restablish public service norms and restore ingterity and independence to the DPP and the AFP in dealings with government.

Keelty has been rotten to the core since we heard of his carry-ons in the CMI investigation, an investigation we can now all agree had hidden depths to be called on everytime another stuff up occurs in the country.

Also today ASIO have been ordered to give certain documents to the lawyers for Scott Parkin and the two Iraqis left rotting on Nauru.

ABC news tonight had a grab of Rudd renewing his promise of a judicial inquiry into the Haneef scanda if he wins office. About time...

See 'Haneef inquiry a must':

"If we form the next government of Australia there will be one," Mr Rudd said. "Each time new information comes out it becomes clearer and clearer to me there are many questions to be answered, and given the nature of this case and given that some of it involves sensitive information and classified information, a judicial inquiry is the proper forum.

"I would call upon Mr Howard to have the integrity to call such a judicial inquiry. It's the only means by which we'll have the truth."

An Islamist website said today it would "soon" carry a new video of bin Laden to mark the anniversary of the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

I hope this is all Bin Laden is going to do to mark the anniversary. With most our police and military tied up in Sydney. Who is keeping an eye on the rest of the country? Was it so smart to have APEC just before this terrible anniversary?

Young Australian's are being demonised by this crowd who couldn't find a piss up in a brewery.

Russo and Keim were dead right to expose the dirty stunt they were trying to pull.

In case you aren't aware - the AFP still won't release the death list from SIEVX because they claim they are "investigating" - which we all know is a lie.

Less than a week before Kevin Andrews needs to confirm an appeal over the Haneef decision, we get this.  Expect to hear from Andrews before the weekend.  Perhaps with supportive comment from Dubya?

Media Release:

LAWFUEL - The Legal Newswire - The Queensland legal profession has defended lawyers representing Dr Mohamed Haneef against Australian Federal Police claims that they have been “unprofessional and inappropriate” in releasing a media release about police-led interviews with the doctor in July, Lawyers Weekly reports.

Haneef’s legal team last week released a 378 page transcript of an interview with police held on 13 July, having released another last month.

In a letter to the Legal Services Commissioner in Brisbane, the president of the Queensland Law Society, Megan Mahon, criticised Australian Federal Police (AFP) claims that “the continuing attempts by Dr Haneef’s defence teams to use the media to run their case is both unprofessional and inappropriate and the AFP has raised this aspect with the Queensland Legal Services Commission”.

But having sought legal advice on the matter, the QLS argued that Ryan and Bosscher Lawyers partner, Peter Russo, has breached none of the conduct rules that govern Queensland solicitors’ professional conduct.

In her letter to the Legal Services Commissioner, Mahon said Rule 19, which addresses the publication of material that is currently before the Courts, states: “19.1 A solicitor must not publish, or takes steps towards the publication of, material concerning current proceedings for which the practitioner is engaged which may prejudice a fair trial of those proceedings or prejudice the administration of justice.”

The AFP claimed last week in releasing the transcript of Haneef’s second interview with police, his lawyers had helped generate “misinformed and speculative reporting” in the media that had forced the AFP to “take extraordinary steps to correct the public record”.

From what I've read..the unfortunate Dr Haneef's cousins didn't need a fall guy. The one who drove the 4 wheel drive into the gates at Glasgow seemed to be on a suicide mission and apparently sent a "suicide note" to his other cousin.

"Fall guy" doesn't really make sense in this case. Besides-you are extrapolating something out of little. There a lots of things Dr Haneef could be but so far it seems he was just as presented-an Indian doctor working in QLD with a deranged cousin. I've got a mad cousin myself.

No Eliot, I will not answer the flame throwing nonsense you spout.   The words Andrews used were never mentioned and in fact young Shoib told Haneef to leave his details with the English police and all of this happened after the tickets were bought and paid for and he was waiting for the transit van to the airport.

Now go and play somewhere or read the damn transcript yourself.

Haneef's cousins were not involved in some conspiracy.  One brother had a brain snap while working in Glasgow and the other brother was simply working hard as a doctor in Liverpool at the time.   He didn't have a clue about his brother's acts until 90 minutes after they happened.

They didn't use Dr Haneef for anything and Dr Haneef was not setting up some grand conspiracy to leave the country.   After all not a single thing ever suggested that he was involved in Glasgow while he was at work in Brisbane.

Let's get this perfectly clear once and for all Eliot - Dr Haneef is a complete innocent without so much as a traffic ticket.  He was fitted up by the feds. for politics.

Richard:  If the translations are reliable.  The AFP seem to have trouble with even the spelling of the name of the language,  got "Urdu" wrong twice

Did they? How did they spell it? It is sometimes also spelled Ordu?

In general, the term "Urdū" can encompass dialects of Hindustani other than the standardised versions. But it's not written with Roman letters, beingg normally wruitten in Nasta`līq (also anglicized as Nastaleeq; نستعلیق nastaʿlīq)

Anyway, thanks again Richard.

Richard  I'd added the link to that Jabberwocky piece by The Age's Sushi Das as an afterthought.  Das claims it was "Udo in the first police interview, and as Burdu in the second interview."  Das also draws attention to the fact that Andrews' claim that Haneef was told in the chatroom that "nothing has been found out about you" does not appear in the transcript. You know the Monty Python sketch about the translation at the tobacconist's?  To refresh your memory: "please fondle my butttocks."

Michael de Angelos asks

Eliot, Dr Haneef is allowed to know his cousins.   OK?   When did he lie about his visa?   He had a police security check before being allowed to enter Britain in 2004 and didn't even have a traffic ticket anywhere in the world.

He had another security check before he was allowed to enter Australia and he came here as a doctor to work in the Brisbane hospital, he left under his own passport with an exit visa in it.

Where is the lie dear child?

As for the rest of it.   The British police didn't want him, had no interest in him, he was not manipulated by his cousins at all, he is allowed to speak to them as that is not a crime and they are not in contact with him now unless Kafeel is channelling him from the great beyond.

In short Eliot he was an innocent, hard working man caring for his widowed mother and siblings from the time he was 18 years old in a country that throws their hindu widows into the streets.

Now enough already about Haneef being guilty of anything at all as he is not.

And how was Dr Haneef used by his cousins as a political pawn, Eliot?

As far as we know he had one (deceased) second cousin who had what looks like a total brainstorm and another one charged on what sounds like very dubious evidence. If driving a car full of petrol cans into an airport gate is considered a major terrorist attack then we really should be worried about those who are meant to care for us.

Besides, members of the public may seek to manipulate the media but the government and police have a duty to act lawfully and correctly at all times.

For far too long police forces and particularly the AFP have been courting the media in a manner that would shame a show biz publicist.

Not only have they been spreading porkies about persons charged with crimes – exaggerating events with a mindlessness that feeds gutter rags like the Daily Telegraph – for virtually no real reason as accused persons can get a trial delayed if there is a perception of media bias (and this happens on far too many occasions these days), they are utterly ignorant of how to actually use the media to their benefit. It doesn't seem to have dawned on these publicly funded dolts in media units that the general public now has a five minute attention span.

So-called "messages" like the Bali Nine bust which Mad Mick Keelty deludes himself is going to frighten Aussie youngsters to steer clear of drugs in Bali ends up having the opposite effect. Try to pound people over the head and young people start to believe it only happens to others, never them but once the truth comes out, as is its wont, the real message does get across: never ever go near the AFP for assistance, as one of the Bali Nine's parents did.

You would think that Keelty would resign out of sheer shame – just talk to anybody in the street now and they think the guy is a complete ass.

And there is another scandal brewing with this cumbersome pack of dingbats over their provision of "evidence" to the NSW police that led to raids on a number of Kings Cross porn shops before the State election that saw one police commander gravely pontificating to the cameras and providing screeching headlines about all manner of "filth" that had been uncovered, with the assembled media tipped off to film boxes and boxes of this stuff being loaded onto police vans.

All the shops are back in business, two cases have been dismissed in the local courts, and the others look like being quietly dropped.

Talk about lunatics being in charge of the asylum!

A New South Wales Senate candidate for the Christian Democratic Party has compared controlling Muslim immigration in Australia to stopping the spread of bird flu.

The Christian Democrats are pushing for a halt to Muslim immigration because there has been no serious study of the effects of Muslims on Australia.

Christians are calling for controls on Muslim immigration. Why stop there, lets ban Christians from immigrating to Australia? There has been no serious studies done on the effects of Christians in Australia. Look at what has happen to our indigenous population since Christians started to arrive. Yes, lets ban all people of religious belief, they are all dangerous. 

Regarding the premise of my last Haneef piece, I rest my case:

 [AdelaideNow extract]

AUSTRALIANS are becoming increasingly worried about their personal security and that of the nation, new polling shows.

The Unisys Security Index gives Australians a rating of 144 out of 300 in terms of their collective security fears, according to a new survey showing a rise in concern for the second consecutive quarter.

Unisys Asia Pacific Vice President Andrew Barkla said the rating of 144 indicated the nation's populace was “at the high end of moderately concerned”.

“We now have a year-and-a-half of data and trends across four primary areas being national security, personal security, financial and internet security,” Mr Barkla said.

“This is the highest level in the history of the index at 144, up 10 points since we polled a quarter ago.

“And the area we've seen the largest rise is in the national security which was up 14 points and, in particular, there was an increasing concern about terrorism.”

Newspoll conducts the quarterly survey of 1200 people across the country, and across all demographics, and this data is then compiled into the security index.

Issues at the fore when the latest polling was conducted included the undetonated car bombs found in London, the terrorist incident at Glasgow airport and the following investigation and deportation from Australia of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.

 

Keith Antonysen says:

" Dr. Haneef was used as a political pawn by the Coalition...."

Not to mention his cousins. Just out of interest, is it okay with everyone here if visa applicants lie about their reasons for coming and going from Australia?

And if you were in Andrews' position, you wouldn't think it suspicious for example if the applicant was connected to a major terrorist incident?

I mean, I don't want to appear ungrateful for all the wonderful things Dr Haneef has done for Australia, but given how everyone's smirking at the CIA for not stopping September 11?

Haneef asked his lawyers to release the second AFP transcript (here).  Andrews response was to send a staffer out to say that most of his decision was on the first interview.

Flick through to about eightish on the night following a long day of happily answering questions of details and locations.  When the Cambridge mosque comes up, and Haneef says that he only visited it once, that appears to be the end of the matter.

I've heard that there's a fairly popular rumour around the Gold Coast that Haneef was planning to blow up the K1.  I doubt the AFP were the ones who put it into circulation.

Mary j Shepherd says:

How then can Andrews possibly continue with a silly appeal to claim that Dr Haneef knew his own cousins and even spoke to them long before one of them was up to no good?

Of course he knew his cousins, Mary J. He was in regular correspondence with them and even gave one of them his SIM card. I don't think he was privy to the plot details, but there's no doubt he lied about his reasons for leaving Australia.

Also, his cousins' extremist politics were no secret, not that that should affect our judgement of Dr Haneef's character. But I'd be a lot more sympathetic to him if he hadn't lied about why he was going to India. He cooked that story up with his brother-in-law.

There's no doubt that John Howard is a scaremonger without peer. We, the poor, suffering Australian citizens, have to fear the following:

massive unemployment after the Labor win; skyrocketing interest rates;  huge deficits; union thuggery; invasion by terrorists disguised as doctors; parliament controlled by ex-ACTU officials; massive Labor State incompetencies; drowning by water cannon; rendition and torture; incarceration in immigration centres; government takeover of land; forcible health checks; email and phone taps; strip clubs and grog; drought; the Second Coming; solariums; global warming; obesity; growing old;  the nuking of Iran; the continuing follies of GWB;  halitosis; Tony Abbot's ears; Downer's simpering smirk; and Armageddon!

Pass the bottle, quick! No, the hemlock one, you fool!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22279854-2702,00.html

I found a small piece in the Guardian yesterday showing that Sabeel didn't know in advance as the police had claimed but in fact didn't know until 90 minutes after his brother had self immolated.

Hedley got Peter Wilson to check it out and it is true.   How then can Andrews possibly continue with a silly appeal to claim that Dr Haneef knew his own cousins and even spoke to them long before one of them was up to no good?

He is going to rely on information from 2004, but what the hell has that got to do with a spur of the moment decision in 2007 that killed the man?

He is also going to re-argue the notion that the victim of a crime can be considered to be of bad character because they know the criminal who hurt them.

He really is nuts.