Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

DPP Bugg's mea culpa, Andrews stands his ground

Peter Faris QC was right. Damian Bugg dropped all charges against Haneef today. But Andrews stands his ground on the visa cancellation, sort of. Here are their statements:

Re Dr Haneef

27 July 2007

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Damian Bugg QC today in explaining his decision to discontinue the prosecution against Dr Haneef said:

I appreciate the importance of this decision and want to set out what has occurred.

Let me say at the outset that there is an ongoing investigation against the backdrop of extremely serious and dangerous conduct of potentially great harm to the public in the United Kingdom.  Much of the information is located overseas and is the subject of ongoing investigations in other jurisdictions.  The position and information is constantly developing and critical decisions have to be made in circumstances of incomplete and changing information.

The decision to charge will, in some circumstances, have to be made during the process and against the background of an ongoing investigation.  

In this situation, once a person has been charged a prosecution commences.  The Prosecution Policy of the Commonwealth, requires that for that prosecution to continue there must be a reasonable prospect of conviction on all the admissible evidence which is available.

If, at any stage in the conduct of a matter, there is concern about whether the prosecution test will be satisfied then the Office will review a matter regardless of where it is at in the court process.

The AFP made a decision to charge Dr Haneef with one count under section 102.7(2) of the Criminal Code in relation to providing a SIM card to a terrorist organisation in July 2006 being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation.

This decision was made following advice provided to the AFP by one of my officers that on the basis of the information available at that stage and what was said to be likely to be available and other potential sources of information, the police could have reasonable grounds for believing that Dr Haneef had committed that offence.

Following the Magistrate’s decision to grant bail I requested the appropriate material to enable me to consider the bail decision.  Having considered that material I decided to undertake a wider review of this matter and requested further material in relation to the case.  The process of supplying this further material has taken time in order to put together as comprehensive a picture as is possible.  The AFP is undertaking overseas inquiries and the pursuit of fresh inquiries within Australia.  I have now received an updated report on this matter from the AFP based on the information available at this time.  I have also considered what evidence may become available.  I have assessed this case against the evidentiary criteria in the Prosecution Policy, acknowledging that it has necessarily required a judgment to be made during a continuing investigation.

In order to prove an offence under section 102.7(2) the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

   1. the defendant intentionally provided resources to an organisation,
   2. the resources would help the organisation engage in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act occurs) and the defendant was reckless as to that
   3. the organisation is a terrorist organisation
   4. the defendant is reckless as to whether the organisation is a terrorist organisation.   

The definition of a terrorist organisation for these purposes is an organisation that is directly or indirectly engaged in preparing, planning, assisting in or fostering the doing of a terrorist act (whether or not a terrorist act occurs).  Recklessness in relation to circumstances under the Criminal Code means a person is aware of a substantial risk that the circumstances exist or will exist and having regard to the circumstances known to him or her, it is unjustifiable to take the risk.

For a prosecution to succeed all of these elements have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.  While there are circumstances in which the provision of a SIM card to a terrorist organisation will amount to an offence against s102.7(2), I am not convinced that the evidence establishes a reasonable prospect of conviction against Dr Haneef under s102.7(2) relating to the provision of a SIM card in 2006.  In my view there is insufficient evidence to establish the elements of the offence as set out above to the requisite standard.  While there are inferences that are available from the material I have, I am of the view they are not sufficiently strong to exclude reasonable hypotheses consistent with innocence.  In the circumstances of this case I do not believe that evidence to prove the case to the requisite standard will be obtained.

There is information which would lead to a reasonable expectation that it could be established that the SIM card was used in connection with the events in the UK in 2007.  However the SIM card was provided in July 2006 and there are no reasonable prospects of proving all of the elements of the offence at that time.

I will emphasise, because there has been speculation on this subject, that at no stage of either the charging process or my consideration of this matter have I been subject to any contact, request, submission or attempt to influence my decision from Government, any politician or political office.  My office is independent from the political process and in my 21 years as a DPP I can say that successive Attorneys-General have respected that independence, none more so than the current Federal Attorney-General.

I also acknowledge that one of my officers put two errors of fact before the court.  The first related to the SIM card and was based on a misunderstanding of the facts.  The second related to the residence of Dr Haneef in the UK and was based on incorrect material provided by the AFP.  The prosecution is of course under a duty to inform the court promptly of any errors that are made in submissions to the court.  The hearing in which these errors were made was determined in Dr Haneef’s favour and when the errors were recognised it was decided to correct them when the matter was next before the court.

My Office strives to ensure it does its work to the highest possible standard.  We review our performance and apply the lessons learned and we will do so in this case.

The DPP has a separate function from the AFP.  We do not investigate.  While we work closely with the AFP as with any investigative agency a clear separation of these roles should be maintained and I have initiated, with Commissioner Keelty a review of the current arrangements.


Dr Haneef, July 26

On Monday, 16th July I exercised my powers under the Migration Act to cancel the visa of Dr Mohamed Haneef.

Since that time there has been media reporting about the evidence against Dr Haneef.

I have ensured, on a number of occasions, that the evidence and the information I based my decision on remains valid.

I am advised that there has been no material change as to the matters upon which I made my decision.  (Margo: By whom?)


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

This in "Age" very late

This in the Age very late on Friday arvo:

"High court ruling proves there is no need for Haneef inquiry, says PM".

Just as well the High Court is not packed with stooges (eg Dyson Heydon, Susan Crennan, Callinan etc). The only honest man, Kirby J, had kittens over the High Court's nonsense concerning Thomas.

The Jack Thomas case dealt specifically with control orders. Aren't there other things also that need to be examined by a parliamentary or judicial committee, apart from the control order aspect, which remains actually as contentious as ever despite the "judgement" of Howard's gormless meat puppets?

First Andrews refuses to release the "chat room" transcript (not released in the real sense unless released in its entirety); now Howard ducks and weaves on an insultingly phony rationale late on a Friday afternoon as to the need for an inquiry to clear this whole sordid mess up.

Does anyone else remember Pinocchio?

While the Howard "New Order" continues their so far successful con of providing the "world" and delivering nothing, the comparisons with the lesson of Pinocchio has always fascinated me.

The moral, as I apprehended it was, offer and provide the greedy and selfish little children with lieing; gambling; smoking; drinking etc., that their mature parents would certainly not allow.

Buck the rules and enjoy life eh?

But what the organisers were really doing was preparing these young and inexperienced humans to be turned into donkeys et al. to be controlled and sold by the unscruplous business people for profit.

LBJ was once quoted as saying "Any donkey can kick down a barn door but it takes a tradesman to build one".  I wonder if he meant a trade Unionist? Building tradesman that is.

Let's not be "long-nosed" or donkeys anymore - remember that it is more hurtful for an employer to withhold bread than for a worker to withold labor.

Even without the Howard Corporation, the employers in any country have the upper hand - as we used to say "They control the purse strings".  They don't need more power.

The Howard extreme right-wing Capitalists would never ever understand nor agree, that the workers of any nation, at any level, have only their labor to sell (expertise or not).

When a responsible government fosters and aids the trade learning and education of the people to whom they owe their existence, the entire country prospers.

When a government becomes a business corporation, and acts for the corporations and is guided by the corporations, (who are only investing for profit) their responsibilities to their people are disregarded.

This Howard government not only outsources jobs but it contracts out it own responsibilities even to the extent of creating a "civilian" Building Corporation with the powers to prosecute our citizens. 

 I don't remember them being elected nor the Howard government being mandated to create them.

These abuses of power are, so far, only Howard's "New Order" in practice for what they hope, will be their future absolute power.

There is no truth - just the Corporations that control us.


High Court on the terror laws

The High Court gave a judgement on the constitutionality of a part of the terror laws this week. Here's the High Court summary. The full judgmeent will be on the High Court's website soon.

2 August 2007


The High Court of Australia today upheld the constitutional validity of that part of the anti-terrorism laws under which an interim control order was made in respect of Mr Thomas.

Mr Thomas allegedly undertook paramilitary training, including in the use of firearms and explosives, at Al Qa’ida’s Al Farooq training camp in Afghanistan in 2001. He was arrested in Pakistan in 2003 and in 2004 was charged in Australia with terrorism-related and passport offences. Mr Thomas was convicted in the Victorian Supreme Court of intentionally receiving funds from a terrorist organisation and of possession of a false passport. The Victorian Court of Appeal set aside the convictions in August 2006 and last December ordered a retrial which has yet to be held. After the convictions were quashed, the AFP applied, with the consent of the federal Attorney-General, for an interim control order (ICO) under Division 104 of the Criminal Code Act. At a hearing on 27 August 2006, Federal Magistrate Mowbray issued the ICO on grounds that related to allegations concerning Mr Thomas’s Al Qa’ida training and his links to extremists. The ICO imposed conditions which include a midnight to 5am curfew, reporting to police three times a week, and prohibitions from contacting particular individuals and from using certain communications technology.

A Federal Magistrates Court hearing to determine whether the ICO should be confirmed for a specified period was listed for 1 September 2006 but was postponed until after Mr Thomas’s challenge to the validity of Division 104 was heard by the High Court. The questions agreed by the parties for determination by the Court were whether Division 104 is invalid because it confers on a federal court non-judicial power contrary to Chapter III of the Constitution, whether it is invalid because in so far as it confers judicial power on a federal court it authorises the power to be exercised in a manner contrary to Chapter III; and whether it is invalid because it is not supported by one or more express or implied heads of legislative power under the Constitution.

By a 5-2 majority, the High Court held that Subdivision B of Division 104 is valid. It held that the subdivision is supported by at least the defence power. The Court held that the defence power is not limited to external threats or to war between nations but extends to protecting the public from terrorist acts. Mr Thomas contended that Subdivision B invalidly confers non-judicial power on federal courts. This contention was rejected. The functions exercised in making ICOs, and the standards according to which they are to be exercised, are such that they involve an exercise of judicial power and thus may be conferred upon the federal judiciary. 

Another whingeing, chardonnay-sipping leftie?

Jenny Hume: "...it would not matter if Haneef was found to have a bomb in his car, the extreme left (and I say extreme because there are a few around here who do not fit that category) would find a way to explain it away in order to fit the mindset.  

The minister could not win with them no matter what information he revealed. Demands to release information, then the lawyers says he should not, then demands again that he do, and when he does, surprise the surprise, the left finds a reason to discredit it."

Hmm, last time I looked I wasn't of the "extreme" left, nor do I try to find ways to explain things away to fit my mindset. On the contrary, I seem find myself with a large number of my distinctly non-left fellow lawyers in this respect.

To illustrate my point, I commend the following two letters from today's SMH to Webdiarists' attention:

I, like many Australians, have joked about not being able to trust a politician. Now that it appears I am deliberately being fed half-truths in the Dr Haneef affair, I feel an overwhelming sense of sadness that the jokes have become truths.

I cannot know the truth of this matter, but I cannot accept snippets quoted without context as accurate. I now sincerely believe I, like so many others, am being manipulated by a Government that wants me to be afraid. Sad, sad day when I really can't trust my government.

Helen Robinson Tullera

It seems that Mick has allowed part of the "evidence" to be quoted by Kevin, but without context. But all that "evidence" has been seen and rejected by the Director of Public Prosecutions as inadequate. Think about that.

Adrian Chan Ashfield

Be my patient

Fiona Reynolds:  Well those two letters really don't say much. The second simply illustrates that some people are unable to accept that lack of sufficient evidence to charge a person for a crime, is a separate issue to the matter of being of good character generally and worthy of the privilege of having a visa to work in this country. As for feeling they cannot trust, are sad, manipulated, made to fear, well that merely reflects two peoples' sense of confusion, and I am not surprised that people are confused with all the interference there has been in this whole matter from so many parties, political, legal, media, public. It is a total farce all round and it will probably do more harm to Haneef in the long run.   

I note you do not address the matter of the inconsistency of Haneef's lawyer on the issue of releasing information. That man is fast to me losing any credibility. He makes statements such as this is untrue, ie re any Al Qaeda link.. How does he know?  Because he asked Dr Haneef and that is good enough for him? Well I suspect it is not for the Indian or Australian police. It seems we are supposed to accept everything that lawyer says at face value, while anything the minister says is pulled apart word for word and discredited before it hardly leaves his mouth.

As for whether the latest has any substance or not, who knows? It could just be supposition on the part of the Indians, after the whole thing blew up in the UK and here, and nothing more than that.  Depends on when the dossier was first instigated, and the inclusion of the reference to Glasgow does not answer that.  It is reasonable to assume files are updated. So until we know whether this file was instigated prior to Glasgow issue, then we do not know one way or another. But I note no one is waiting for that, just reject it out of hand.

That is what I find disingenuous about the left. As far as I can see only David Curry has been prepared to look at the possibility that there might be questions to be answered before one can definitely form a proper opinion.  He at least shows some objectivity.

Why can few here not admit it?  Nobody here, including me, has a clue what Haneef might or might not know, or been up to, yet most are ready to accept without question anything he or his lawyer says on face value and instantly reject anything the authorities might say.  I'll leave you all to figure out why.  As for me, I prefer to wait till the police have finished their investigations before reaching any conclusions. 

I do not often agree with Miranda Devine, but on this one in the Herald today she is spot on. I could not have said it better myself.

As for you Frere Jihad, I will not bother to respond to such nonsense. If you need a cuppa though I will make you one. A few others could probably do with one too. Why don't you all calm down, make a cuppa yourselves and let the police try and do their job. Forget the chardonnay Fiona, not good for you my dear.

But tell me all of you, if this was Kevin Rudd running the show, would you all be so vocal?  Well we will find out soon enough no doubt but I am beginning to think David Davis might be right, as Hamish Alcorn was before him. Hamish left WD citing much the same issues about the left that I see.

And as David says, once Howard is gone the left's purpose in life here will evaporate. What will you all do because I do not think for one minute, no matter what Rudd does in Government too many here will make too much of a fuss.  

The Gunns of this world will be smiling. Kevin running the show exactly the same way as Howard did, and the left falling silent.  I wait for you all to prove me wrong.

Now this should give the Lataanite a bit of wood for his fire today.

Cheers folks.   Going bush today and might even put the billy on to boil. A cuppa would be nice after all Fere Jihad. And BTW I was a bloody good nurse so if anyone is feeling ill, be my patient. Sorry if that sounds arrogant. Can't help myself, gotta live up to my rep, keep DL happy.  

Oh no Jenny

The (libertarian socialist) left will have as much to bitch about Rudd et al as they do now. Remember what I said yesterday?

The IR laws could never have been effective had not the arch Quisling renegades, Hawke, Keating and the rest not introduced the secondary Boycott provisions effectively gutting the union movement, leaving it where it is today. How would the waterfront dispute have gone a few years ago if the TWU refused to deliver to a non union site and been legally entitled to do so? At this point I must, to demonstrate that I have some objectivity, proclaim that waterfront reform was desperately needed and long overdue but the methods used were despicable. Men were enticed to change careers to work as stevedores and then cast aside like shitty rags once they were no longer useful.

As a result of the last "Labour" administration, assets that were owned equally by rich and poor alike were delivered to those who could afford to buy them at discount rates, (except for the second tranche of Telstra,) and we have been left with the legacy of being held to ransom by the banking, fuel and retail cartels. No worries if your well off.

As I said, the left has no voice and there is no essential difference between the two major parties.

Cheers dear girl, see you tomorrow, pity you don't have a few hours to spare then I could give you a real ear bashing.

Be my ebba so patient, there's no place like Hume

Jokka: But tell me all of you, if this was Kevin Rudd running the show, would you all be so vocal?.

Got startling news for you, Jok. It is Kevin running things, according to the papers. Even tiny International Socialist Rupert's stunning English language parodies of Bild Zeitung.

Apparently this is causing the lesser beings amongst the PM's sinister crew a total loss of bowel control - look at that poor unfortunate Andrews sister. He wants a good dose of cod liver oil and a brisk walk in the sunshine. A trip to the seaside with his carers. Not too many chips, though. He might be attacked by a terrorist seagull.


Can't help meself Scott old mate

Scott Dunmore: "Never mind lad, all harmless, (though self indulgent) fun."

You are absolutley correct, old chap; but allow me to translate and thus clarify the terms. In albatross speak the term "self indulgence" is commonly known, amongst your species (using the vernacular), as wanking. Most of the time we simply can't help ourselves. Is it any different in your species?

In fact we blame it on God; for when She created our species She gave us male albatrosses a little bit extra so to speak. It was Her way of giving us something to do while we had nothing to do, especially on our long and boring flights from Tassie to Cape Town.

In short, we male albatrosses have become experts in the art of self indulgence, thank God.

So Scott, I hope you may be a little more enlightend now on the realities of the albatross way of life.

PS. we blame RSI on the Devil.

G'day Ian,  

G'day Ian, thank you for your reply to my post in The Occupation of Iraq...thread. I apologise for bringing this forward to another heading - I hope to start some serious discussion on this subject in Webdiary. If my memory serves me well, you are right about Bob Hawke stating that Australia should become the world's No. 1 nuclear waste dump. I sincerely do not agree. However, I recommend to you this site for an enlightening opposed view to a nuclear Australia or nuclear proliferation in any of its forms.

We must remember that this technology was born to be used as a weapon of killing and devastation the like of which no one could possibly have imagined. We should also remember that that technology has been refined to a point where just one of the latest nuclear killing devices could begin the destruction of the planet.

Let alone the effects of depleted uranium weapons.

We should step back from this money making exercise which is falsely being floated as the best way to stop climate change itself from destroying the planet.

It goes without saying that the Howard government's echoing of everything the Bush Administration says or does means that, if he is given the chance at the next election, he will permit the US to build reactors in our country and will, at the very least, accept their waste. The only way to stop a nuclear Australia of reactors; enriching of uranium, and storing radioactive waste is to vote Howard's government out of office. Of course he would claim that the US corporations will foot the bill. No sir, we will pay for it in foreign debt which Howard has raised from $180 billion in 1996 to almost $600 billion now. This, in spite of the reported (and not reported) accidents and mistakes currently occurring in many countries. The best I have heard was the Canadian Professor Suzuki's lecture to the Australian national press on his nation's problems and its enormous costs. One of the biggest cons of the nuclear reactor energy source is the claim that it is cost effective in spite of the known excessive costs of construction and maintenance. Those costs are far in excess of the alternative methods of harnessing the natural energy of the planet itself. Cleaner, cheaper, safer and more effective on climate change. Every Australian should know by now that the Howard "New Order" never ever listens to the Australian people once they have given him the dictatorial powers of a federal election.

Cheers Ian.

Ern G.

Speculation again

Ernest William

"he will permit the U.S. to build reactors in our country and will, at the very least, accept their waste".


This is pure speculation, and I believe you have to say so according to the ground rules at WD. You might have got away with this sort of thing in your days as a union delegate, but this is the real world.

Richard: umm, Alan, the reactor that Howard's friends Morgan, De Crespigny and Walker want to build is a GE enrichment facility.  It looks like GE will be leasing uranium to India as part of a reactor construction deal.  Ernest is close to the mark. 

More speculation

Richard"the reactor that Howard's friends Morgan, De Crespigny and Walker want to build". that is a looong way down the track, that's if it ever gets off the ground.

Richard:  What's a decade amongst friends?.  India's aiming to get everything up and running by 2020, so there's no mad rush. 


Eliot, the cars in London were not bombs. They could have sat there for 70,000 years and been as destructive as the SIM card. They had a drum of 13 gallons of petrol, a small gas cylinder and a box of nails on the floor with no detonator or explosives. That was reported on BBC weeks ago. Not bombs, see?

The group is a small Arab group so it might be possible that the Iraqi man in the jeep and the Palestinian were involved but not the Indians: the group is under watch but not banned. The cousin who self-immolated was suspected of being radical but never proven to be radical, and while India said they found some radical stuff on his computer the point was the computer was old and in Bangalore while the man has been in Ireland and England since 2004. Got that so far, Eliot?

The other cousin is charged with withholding information, but that only happened after the clowns here falsely charged Dr Haneef, weeks after they knew he was not involved. Got that much have we, Eliot?

Now we know that the feds and the DPP knew weeks ago that Haneef should not have been charged but decided to wait until the next court hearing to say so. That would have meant they conspired to keep an innocent man in solitary confinement for an extra five weeks. OK?

The prosecutor in Brisbane committed perjury to the court, verballed the doctor at the bail hearing, lied about "evidence" that did not exist, and pretended that Dr Haneef had not told them how he got his one way ticket and why.

This and we find out where the cock up started. Keelty has one of his keystoners in Scotland Yard and they have screwed up some 700 so-called terror cases already, murdered one man, shot another, and destroyed reputations while letting actual killers walk free in the community.

Not encouraging, is it? Meantime 1 in 7 Iraqis are fleeing their country thanks to us, half the population is starving, there is no electricity still, and almost all the reconstruction is falling down and corrupt.

And we whine about a man with a few phone calls left on a SIM card.

1 in 7

Mary j Shepherd: "Meantime 1 in 7 Iraqis are fleeing their country thanks to us",half the population is starving, there is no electricity still and almost all the reconstruction is falling down and corrupt".

It's funny how they manage to find enough money to buy bombs and bullets, and blow up perfectly good cars and buildings.

You still have not told us about the 40,000 people in the black hole. Try and get your act together.

Place a Bet now

It's only a matter of time, but how much longer can Kevin Andrews hold on before he is consigned to the backbench and held responsible for the whole fiasco ?.

It's just been reported by crikey.com.au that Dr Haneef has been offered the post of a senior government surgeon by the Karnataka Government.

Howard looks like he is going to try and bluff this one out - a fitting end to his career.

Terrorist Pals

Eliot, I forgot to mention I attended a huge function about four years at the Darling Harbour Convention Centre for Gerry Adams, leader of Sinn Fein the acknowledged political arm of the IRA – the ones who blew up my friend (and five others) at Harrods in 1983.

Where does that leave me? I paid to attend, along with politicians from all parties. Are we supporting a terrorist organisation? Just because Tony Blair was able to forge a truce it didn't negate all the IRA's actions. The IRA has killed far more Britons than any other terrorist group.

The government should be worried by Dr Haneef – the damage that could be wreaked by Kevin Andrew's and AFP's treatment of him may have dire consequences with our relationship with India. Our bozo Foreign Minister may well find it's he who has to kiss the ground and beg forgiveness.


Along with a group of local folk musos, I played on stage with The Chieftains a couple of years ago.  There were lots of lovers of Irish music in the room ... fifteen hundred or so.

I've also played in Irish pubs in many countries across the world, including one in Belfast that later blew up.

I don't know

Jenny, I confess to slight surprise at your stance but understand the need for objectivity. Unfortunately none of us writing here can ever attain that. We can never know all the facts, and objective truth, I suggest, does not exist. We are left with the choice of forming an opinion based on what we think we know and coloured by our personal philosophies. It is part of human nature to readily believe the worst of our enemies, real or imagined and wish for innocence of those we believe oppressed if such is our inclination.

In the matter of Dr Haneef the facts that I know with absolute surety are these: that all charges against him were dropped; that he was released to be repatriated; that the government continues to implicate him by innuendo; and that part of that innuendo is unreleased information which is being withheld as a matter of national security. (My opinion, bullshit. No serious terrorist is unaware of surveillance techniques available to the agencies responsible for state security by now, nothing would be compromised by the release of such information if it exists and if it does it is of the most tenuous nature, evidently.)

The facts that I cannot be absolutely certain about are these: that this government has form on the board for carelessly trashing people’s lives for political expediency, (SIEVX, children overboard and the Tampa incident.) So based on what I know and what I think I know I must come to the (likely) conclusion that this was nothing else but a political beat up that went wrong. Even the right wing press, (who I guess can smell Howard's blood) are reporting this as a farce.

You raise in my mind a more serious issue.  Do we live in an age of terrorism? What's the difference between the Jihadists and the anarchists of the early 20th century, the Red Brigades or the Bader- Meinhoff group? Yes there is a difference but only of degree fuelled by modern technology. Nutters with hand guns certainly couldn't compete in terms of effective mayhem with back packs loaded with HE. The point I'm making is this: ultimately there is only a minimal defence against terrorism. Better we remove the cause of terrorism than try to fight it at great cost to our civilisation. Where do we draw the line?

The trade off of homeland security against civil liberty and human rights. This is a very subjective issue, unquantifiable, and comes down to each individual’s take on the subject. How many people can be traumatised, their lives disrupted for the sake of a nebulous "common good". See you Friday.

Eliot, you’re patently not an idiot but at times you sure write like one. The only inference I can draw from your Irish analogy is that of an establishment v anti-establishment situation. (Please correct me if I’m wrong and don’t get me started on the Irish question.) The position of the libertarian left of which I consider myself one is this. All acts of random violence are held in total abhorrence. It is mindless. Your friends are not those of whom you think well but those who think well of you. Random violence can take out your friends (and create enemies) as well as your possible enemies. I welcome your input but start thinking straight and please pardon my patronisation.

Justin, you’re a treasure. There was me thinking you’re a pretentious pigeon (your propensity for shitting on things gives you away) with delusions of albatross status, and then you come out with “Moi, a bloody pigeon!” Oh dear, the old one liner was “Pretentious!  Moi?” and had me cracking up. Never mind lad, all harmless, (though self indulgent) fun. I’ll invite you to take a pop at me although I don’t know if I’ve given you too much ammunition. Then again, you might be a Kiwi and everybody knows why they can’t fly. They’re sooooo full of shit. (Apologies to any EnZedders who might be watching.)

Well, I am not sure, Scott

Well Scott, I am not sure exactly what aspect of my stance bothers you. I agree with most of what you say but I do have a problem with the propensity on WD, no matter what the issue, for objectivity to be the first casualty. I think I used the expression prisoners of ideological paradigms on another thread. It makes opinion here entirely predictable and not always very rational. But that is the nature of the beast I guess. The same can be said of those who blog on sites that hold the opposite political viewpoint. I really don't find a home for myself in either of the two camps or extremes.

I have little time for any politician at the moment, on either side of politics. Howard lost me a long time ago for a whole raft of reasons, some of which you mention. But is the Labor party going to be any different? That business in Tasmania really stinks and I was hoping that someone here would at least be prepared to stand up and say so, but of course it is a Labor government down there, so silence reigns here. Says it all.

As for Dr Haneef, I said right from the beginning he should simply be released on bail. He was hardly likely to go anywhere since they had his passport. I have no idea why his visa remains cancelled and until the information is released, if it ever is, am not prepared to make any judgements about Andrews, though I think he should stop shooting off his mouth in the way he does. If there is no good reason for the visa not to be re-instated, then it should be forthwith. I have nothing against Dr Haneef but I do not know the man, and am not prepared to pass any opinion on the matter without all the facts.

And it is not racism that drives me here. I actually have quite an affinity with the Indian people, with a large double dash of Indian blood of my own, of which I am rather proud. A couple of my cousins could pass as Indian. Maybe I should not admit that at the moment!

As to the whole terrorism thing. For one who spent much time studying Islam and living with Muslim girls for a year I must say that the respect I once had for that religion has been badly eroded. Not just through the acts of terrorism which kill more Muslims than anyone else, but for the incidents like the hanging of that sixteen year old girl in Iran a year or so ago, the other public hangings, and the stonings. And yes it is not a new thing, but it seems that with the trend toward radicalism we are going to see more and more of that application of Sharia law. And to see the callous murder of those Koreans in Afghanistan by the Taliban just sickens me. While I know millions of Muslims world wide are no doubt shocked by the drift toward radicalism, it has to be faced that it is within the religion itself that the seeds exist. And they need to address that, but I won't hold my breath on that score.

There is a difference with this sort of terrorism to earlier movements and not just that the technology has armed it better. It is not a localised phenomenon such as with organisations like Etta, and the IRA: it is a global one. So we find extremists in Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon causing as much misery there as they do on trains in Madrid. It cannot be treated lightly because of its professed aims, and because it does have capacity for global reach and destruction on a very large scale.

It really does not affect me all that much and I do not live in any sort of fear of all this. But it is easy for me to say that because the likelihood of it ever touching me is fairly slim, and at this stage of life I can say that I have had a reasonable run. But I do think we have to be concerned for people beyond ourselves: young people and their children who will be the ones to suffer if the world does not get on top of global terrorism. It is easy to say: deal with the root cause, by which I guess you mean Iraq and ME policy on the part of the West, but I think it is naive to think that the global jihadist movement would then simply go away. The causes of fundamentalism in any religion go beyond the political and that is not so easy to address. So yes, I think times are different now with this phenomenon.

Now we could probably talk about all this till the cows come home, and if we did we would probably find we are not too far apart in our views. But Ian will not get any dinner and he has been battling all day, so domestic duty calls. And yes, see you Friday, and thanks. We have to get to Uralla by evening so will not have a lot of time on the outward trip but maybe on the return we can argue the toss a bit.

Jenny, I'll stand corrected ...

Jenny, I'll stand corrected on the issue of the nature of terrorism as it exists today. It is different by virtue of the fact that the perpetrators are willing to sacrifice themselves in order to achieve God knows what end. I think it would be more than useful to understand the psychology of these folk but have seen little evidence of concerted study or research. Mark you, it's a little hard to interview the successful ones.

Something else Jenny, if no one else will say it I will. The left has had no political representation or currency in the first world for thirty years.

Justin's friends who may be concerned about his albatross thing should not be unduly alarmed, I'm sure it's only a passing phase. After all, I used to think I was a parrot but I'm all right now, all right now, all right now, all right now.


Mr Andrews, was very convincing with his explanation in relation to justifying his decision making in relation to Dr Haneef; it all hinges on the word "may". How much of a bigger hole do Mr Andrews et al  need to dig before they give up?

My cousin Mick

Richard Tonkin says:

A couple of years ago our SA Attorney General was down at the Irish Club for the annual ritual commemoration of the Easter 1916 uprising.  Does this tie him to Sinn Fein?  No it doesn't, though the fact that his name is Mick might be incriminating evidence.

What if Mick's cousin was an alleged terrorist with the Ulster Defence Force instead? And Mick's SIM card was found in the possesion of a suspect in a failed double pub bombing plot?

And the pubs were in Dublin instead of London and there was a second attack was at Shannon airport. And that was Mick's cousin, too.

And Mick, who is a member of Ian Paisley's Free Presbyterian Church, suddenly decided to visit his family in New Jersey.

You'd ignore that?

Lemme guess...

Sue Sue Sue

It sounds like Peter Russo is planning libel action and that's why he advised Kevin Andrews to hold his tongue, but Howard has put his foot right in it with his claim Dr Haneef "may still be a terrorist".

They've neglected to use the Heffernan preferred method in Coward's Castle when he attacked Kirby and the very principled former NSW A-G Bob Debus (who will hopefully replace Ruddock in a few months).

But any such court action begun after the visa matter will silence the media which will suit the Coalition to a tee and hang the consequences as it will take years to settle and the Liberal Party has probably guaranteed to cover any costs for damages.

Meanwhile, the Government Gazette has reclaimed its position with a raft of writers attempting to swing the spotlight back on Kevin Rudd.

God, how they must hate his deft footwork in not embroiling himself in this ridiculous bungle. Ernest William is probably correct in his assessment of some of the electorate, but those same folk won't be pondering over Rudd's actions, merely continuing to think what a nice chap he is.

ps: Eliot, if one is judged by their relatives then I put my hand up and plead guilty by association! Sadly not all have behaved in an ethical fashion and probably even worse. I'm usually the one there to help when things go pie-eyed.

However although I'm getting on I wasn't there when one was shot dead trying to rob a bank 100 years ago.

A Reality Check on the Haneef Saga?

Let's remember several facts when we consider the Haneef bungle:

  • When Howard says that the Australian people are not stupid, he really means the opposite. Normal directional lie.
  • No federal Coalition Party member would dare to do or say or decide anything, without first either discussing it fully with the little dictator.
  • Howard's media claims of being the quintessential politician - by definition - must include the qualification that HE decides what will be done or said - and the manner in which it will be done or said!

With those self evident facts in mind, consider these:

  • Was the whole thing an attempt by Howard's "New Order" to divert attention from the real election issues?
  • Was it intended to bring back the fascist National Security at the expense of an unknown and possibly innocent man? Would Howard care about that person when he does not care about Australian citizens?
  • With the obvious bungling of this knee-jerk persecution for an election gimmick by the AFP, the DPP and the Immigration Minister, consider the most likely method they will use to escape the burden of responsibility.

To his credit, the DPP has admitted his mistake. However, this still leaves the AFP Commissioner and the Immigration Minister to explain their failures.

  • If there really is secret information which Commissioner Keelty and Minister Andrews used to abuse this man's human rights, will they release it?
  • IMHO not on your Nelly - as Kevin Rudd would say.
  • So, we have the AFP saying, "no, don't release it" which, conveniently for Howard, will ensure that the matter cannot really be settled and will remain in media limbo.
  • Conversely, the poor Minister of blunders Kevin Andrews, faithful to the Boss, plays his part in pleading for its release. Fair dinkum?

Checks and balances again:

  • If Howard allows the release of damning information, strong enough to justify the draconian behaviour of the government players, then why did they let Haneef go home?
  • If there is no such information and it is obvious that this is just another Howard diversionary wedge, then "let's keep the public in doubt" so that the scam continues unabated. Reasonable?

IMHO this was a "$10 billion for the Murray-Darling" knee-jerk opportunity to capitalise on a non-event which, like most things that the spiteful little schoolboy is doing lately, has backfired.

Where is his Tampa, his babies overboard, his illegal invasions, and his clever wedging of the Australian people?

Let's keep our eyes on the ball.

There is no truth - just the "New Order" desperation.



Mary j Shepherd says:

Some more explaining is required but perhaps the "secret" information that moron Andrews is relying on is the fact that, the second cousins were part of some vague little group and that the parents went to Saudi Arabia.

Would that be the "vague little group" that did the failed Mercedes car bombings in London and the failed Jeep bombing attack at Glasgow?

Oh, that's right. They were "accidents", weren't they?

Taking a punt

Based on what Kevin Andrews is telling Jon Faine (ABC radio 774) right now, I'm guessing Dr Haneef has made traceable donations to an organisation such as Hizb

This theory would explain Howard's vigorous defence of Andrews, the reluctance of the spooks to release the information, and the ambiguity - Hizb is not banned in the UK (is it?), but I don't know its status here.

Expect the government, then, to attempt to effect a coup by bringing in legislation to ban an Islamic organisation and thereby prevent Haneef from getting another visa (and sweeping up a few more foreign professionals), and/or come up with legislation to bring financial transactions under more effective scrutiny.

Since the government does not have a hope in hell of making hay out of international transfer of funds, I am willing to declare that I bought a book, some of the sales of which may have funded an orange grove in a kibbutz.

Traceable Connection

A couple of years ago our SA Attorney General was down at the Irish Club for the annual ritual commemoration of the Easter 1916 uprising.  Does this tie him to Sinn Fein?  No it doesn't, though the fact that his name is Mick might be incriminating evidence.

I'm aware of one defence worker who, first working day after the St Paddy's day parade, was shown, in the DSTO office, a photo of herself next to a bagpiper, and asked why she was associating with such a person.  Okay I'm not always keen on bagpipers either.

My point is that if you're watching people for suspicious connections it's easy to find those that aren't there.

England never wanted Haneef

According to the Lateline interview with the pommy expert tonight, the poms lost interest in Haneef before Australia charged him. Some more explaining is required but perhaps the "secret" information that moron Andrews is relying on is the fact that, the second cousins were part of some vague little group and that the parents went to Saudi Arabia.

Judging by the interference of the Indian government who are very paranoid of Muslims in India though, it is clear that they knew he was completely innocent of anything.

As the man said, the stupid poms have tried to put people into prison for not being their brothers keepers and failed.

What a pack of clowns – Andrews’ gaffe is now blown. Unlike him, the rest of us are capable of reading the Indian and English papers and asking questions about different things.


Maybe the Great Pretender is facting in a bit of inflation into his arithmetic.

No prosecution, Eliot?

But not for the want of trying! And don't believe one setback will stop them.

I think we are very lucky that the legal fraternity en masse really came to the fore this time including the superb Peter Russo (whom I believe you recommended Dr Haneef should fire, Eliot!). And who would have thought Peter Farris would speak up as a champion for the good Indian doctor and the rule of law?

As for the rise of fascism one should read the many books or maybe one of the best The Rise Of Fascism by F.LCarsten which describes how it crept up on people by small increments, so many similar to today. And it was only ever supported by less than half the German people who had less access to the media than us.

One prominent feature was a relentless attack upon the independence of the judiciary, an ongoing feature of the Howard government begun by the first Coalition AG Daryl Williams, who looks decidedly mild in retrospect compared to Phillip Ruddock.

These people are fanatics and come in all forms from a demagogue like Howard who brooks no dissent from a compliant backbench to useful, dispensable enablers like Kevin Andrews (who will surely be facing a libel action). We saw how a very decent and intelligent Liberal MP like Bruce Baird never got near a Minister's office, yet he would be more capable than the entire Howard ministry together.

They are fixed in their ideas and put their souls into achieving a desired society. It's quite scary when you think so much that is happening in the world today is caused by George Bush and his lot considering his grandfather Prescott Bush not only financially funded the Nazi Party but was also one of the backers behind a plan to oust FDR by a coup of 100,000 war veterans who supported the Nazi attitude to workers not dissimilar to the Coalition policies.

For the roots of Work"Choices" read up on German 1930's history and you won't find too many attitudes that vary far from statements given by Tony Abbott, Kevin Andrews and Amanda Vanstone in their various roles as Employment Minister.

Keep our eyes on the Ball.

While the corporations (MSM) slowly raise the tempo of support for the Howard fascist corporations’ government, we mustn’t forget the whatever it takes attitude of the spiteful little schoolboy.

He has tried and tried to wedge Kevin Rudd, the federal Australian Labor Party's shadow ministers, and the Australian Labor Party State governments.

He has tried to ridicule the Australian Greens and the Australian Democrats.

What next, may we ask? Certainly nothing is beyond this person or his sycophantic robots.

It amazes me that he often talks about sport, especially cricket; yet he has no conception of conventions, protocol, dignity, decency, or sportsmanship.

While we await the next shock and awe attempt to wedge Kevin Rudd, let's pause over the approach of the federal election.

Upon reading the AEC rules on the net, some of which Howard has already changed, I believe as follows:

  • Howard's 41st Parliament first met on Tuesday 16 November 2004.
  • This means that his tenure expires on Thursday 15 November 2007.

Unless he changes the Act and the Constitution.

  • If he holds a House of Representatives and a Half Senate election jointly, he can declare the poll dates at any time between 4 August 2007 and 19 January 2008.
  • He can have the House of Reps alone within those dates and then have the Half Senate poll as late as 24 May 2008.
  • That's some broad brush.

Unless he changes the Act again.

  • His possible double dissolution expired on 21 July last.
  • However, an election may be held at any time before that date, and, generally elections are called well before there is a Constitutional or legal necessity.

Briefly, that is how I read the laws.

While the latest ever federal election in Australia was 19 December 1931, that by no means would deter this little fascist from doing anything he chooses.

So, although he says that he is not "poll driven" it is just another lie.

My initial reaction is that he will go later rather than sooner unless he can wedge the public again by some outrageous, media supported lie of fear and hatred.

There is no truth - just the powers that be.


Yes, watch out

Ernest William, Kevin Rudd has pledged $500 million to cut the cost of building new homes.

Kevin Rudd said the money would assist up to 50,000 homebuyers over five years. Kevin Rudd said Labor's Housing Affordability Fund would cut the cost of a new home by up to $20,000.

What a whizz this guy is with numbers – about as good as his memory about dinners with Brian Burke.

If he cannot do some simple maths, how the hell is he going to run the economy?

Wrong suspicion.

"Keith, I read over the weekend that the Howard Government introduced the bad character clause in '98 (or was it '99?). "

Thanks David, it clears up my suspicious thoughts.

Typical "New Order" propaganda Eliot. Mk 2.

Eliot, no offence but, are you ok?

In DPP Bugg's mea culpa.......you quote:

Ernest William says:

So we have a typical fascist federal government totally controlled by one person (who must be obeyed) and a conga-line of robots who are incapable of handling normal areas of governance and yet, are unaccountable as is their "Boss" as they call him.

So, why wasn't there a prosecution?

Read my post again and you just may answer your own question.

Then in Heil Andrews.....you give the story of Quan Duc, a Buddhist monk who burned himself in protest in the far East.

Then you accuse me of claiming that that was not true. Struth.

I remind you that I stated that IMHO the photograph showed a person who is not praying in the Islamic manner. England, Eliot - Islam, old friend - not Buddhist.

We are wasting good WD management time by dwelling on this issue in the U.K. Eliot.

Ming the Merciless Menzies once wisely opined to his cabinet, something like this:

"There are issues about which we can do nothing, so as reasonable men, let us consider those about which we can".

Very similar to the alcoholic's motto?

Cheers, Eliot.

Ern G.

Gee, Eliot, thanks!

Did I say I did it?  It took human rights groups from all over the world thirteen years to stop Australia locking up kids in concentration camps in the desert.

One million protested against the Iraqi invasion and were called the mob and ignored.

This time we were alert and alarmed enough to nip the madness in the bud in 27 days and that is a damn good thing for everyone.

Now Howard is defending the indefensible Andrews again while Andrews is still whispering sweet uglies about Dr Haneef, the knuckle draggers are out of their cages for the day, and the Indian government is so worried about his bad behaviour they have given him a job in the Bangalore hospital while they lobby to have him accepted back to Australia.

What gets me the most is not that the AFP and DPP just made up the charges and the so-called crime but that they were prepared to let him sit in isolation for another five weeks without ever correcting the record rather than admit he should never have been charged.

Doesn't know the meaning of the word...

Ernest William says:

So we have a typical fascist federal government totally controlled by one person (who must be obeyed) and a conga-line of robots who are incapable of handling normal areas of governance and yet, are unaccountable as is their "Boss" as they call him.

So, why wasn't there a prosecution?

Mary J's wonderful work

Mary j Shepherd says:

God it feels so good to win a huge one like this – so big that even all the Murdoch tabloids are enraged.

Yes, you deserve full credit for the fantastic work you did, Mary J. You must be relieved to see Dr Haneef finally at home with his loved ones after all your efforts.

Are any of our Public Servants independent at all?

With the continuing stuff ups by virtually all of the Howard government's departments, one has to ask whether or not they are really governing this country at all.

While we are all accustomed to Howard's Little Sir Echo to the Bush Administration on foreign policies and some micro-domestic issues, the custom and practice of the Howard robots is to take over a portfolio, decide on what they cannot handle themselves (and an extraordinary number of those seems to exist) then privatise it!

For instance, the Australian soldiers who are sent to relieve those comrades whose tour has finished are being flown by a Portuguese company that, according to previous Australian employees, is not obliged to maintain the safety measures required by Australian companies under Australian laws.

Typical of the cheap and dangerous way that Howard/Downer/Nelson are renowned for when dealing with our military.

Does CASA permit this or are they just there for Howard to blame if something goes wrong – like Private Kovco's body and Downer's cheap Garuda flight that crashed killing Australians that he said he was “flying to safety"?

Then we have a public servant named Barbara Bennett, who is promoted above her station and is the lead actor in the Howard/Hockey deception ads.

No independence there but significant deceit for personal advantage.

When the AFP Commissioner Keelty had the audacity to independently state that being in the illegal invasion of Iraq made our country more of a terrorist target, Howard's headkickers Downer, Heffernan, Costello, Ruddock and Abbott climbed all over each other to attack him.

He backed down and has never recovered any credibility since.

Then the AFP investigation of three Queensland Liberals for rorting federal funds (often a Liberal pastime) which some five months ago became known as the "PrintGate".

On Meet the Press yesterday, Clinton Porteous asked this question of Peter Beattie:

On politics in your State, you've had a lot to say about the AFP and DPP. I want to ask you about the AFP investigations into the three Federal Liberals over the so-called Printgate. It's been almost five months. Aren't they bumbling? Shouldn't they get on and get out a decision on what's happening there?

Premier Beattie said it was federal and, while he would like it settled as soon as possible, he won't interfere.

The Howard-dictated Cole Inquiry on the AWB paying kickbacks to Saddam Hussein, while being so hamstrung by Howard's narrow terms of reference, nevertheless recommended prosecution of eleven of the AWB Board, including the arch gunman Flugge.

Flugge challenged the federal government and stated that it they did prosecute him, his Barrister would put Downer on the stand and vigorously cross-examine him.

No prosecutions have taken place. Who is to blame for that? Keelty? I think not.

So we have a typical fascist federal government totally controlled by one person (who must be obeyed) and a conga-line of robots who are incapable of handling normal areas of governance and yet, are unaccountable as is their "Boss" as they call him.

Whatever happened to the buck stops at the top?

As much as it irks me to say it, why doesn't the spiteful little Commander-in-Chief look after his military as well as his false claims portray?

There is no truth – only the powers that be.


He's home

Touched down an hour ago. Hey folks, when the fringe dwellers can show that something is terribly unjust we can win.

One craggy lawyer, one feisty barrister and honest journo, one beautiful and gutsy young Muslim woman and a tiny baby brought this pack of bastards to their knees.

God it feels so good to win a huge one like this – so big that even all the Murdoch tabloids are enraged.

Albatross round the neck / bird of good omen

Ought to let go of Andrews, the guy is only like a dog following after its master. As Jason Kotsoukos commented in the Age, no way Andrews would have lifted a finger or breathed a word on any of this in the last few weeks if not explicitly instructed to beforehand by Howard, in private. So all his current noise is likely only for having attention drawn away from a certain authorial culprit.

What other explanation can there be for the snide near-brainless remark about Dr Haneef's departure?

Had his work visa permit withheld, vagrancy is a crime and a little new-born never yet seen waiting at home with her mother...

Being now familiar with Aussie justice Laura Norda redneck-style, no doubt he did leave quick and only a nutwig like Andrews would not have followed suit.

When Andrews was at church a fortnight ago, do readers think he read the Parable of the stoning of a woman, which ends with Christ telling a redneck mob, "Let he who is without fault cast the first stone". This, the day before he started that vile series of character smears ending with the one today. The minister, with an arrogance not believable beforehand in an agnostic, let alone an allegedly pious man, started up about others "failing character-tests”. This for no better reason than as a servile response to an "owner’s" dog whistle, put above the protection of truth itself, commanding he create incitement directed to Hansonist Australia against the scapegoat of the moment, Dr. Haneef.

A Christian, has this persecutor-in-chief from Miller's witch- hunt play The Crucible, as astutely observed recently by Trevor Kerr, moved forward three centuries to the Immigration Ministry circa 2007?

More like Caiaphas and Ananias, the two high priests who got Christ lynched.

Haneef was blessed the sun was shining on him as to fortune. He could have been in dreadful strife for a very long time but for a bit of fortune.

Still, shouldn't go too hard on Andrews, one supposes. People like "beds are burning/ woodchipping" Garrett are also out there.

Andrews a lap dog?

I've had reliable confirmation, Paul, that Andrews goes to his media-ops via Howard's office.

Tell you what, Richard,

Tell you what  Richard, it's not just we fringe bloggers. The Oz just out is giving the bugger a right baking too, even in its editorial.

 Perhaps now he's finding out what it's like to be kicked over when down. Now perhaps he knows how  Haneef might've felt like, on the "other" end. But he is so thick I doubt even this would "learn" him a lesson.

Monkey see, monkey do ... ?

The Oz had better be careful, or it will be losing its (unofficial?) appointment as the Government Gazette. And do have a look at Bill Leak's cartoon today - priceless.

Immigration Minister's Powers

How long has it been that a Minister of Immigration can place a non-Australian in detention for a matter of "character"? 

I'm wondering whether it was brought in at the beginning of this current politican term when the Anti-Terrorist laws were invoked and the un-Australian "WorkChoice" legislation was passed.

Andrews' bad character

Keith, I read over the weekend that the Howard Government introduced the bad character clause in '98 (or was it '99?).

Fiona - was just about to paste in The Australian's call for Andrews to be sacked. The wind really is changing, isn't it?

Andrews is about the loneliest man in Australia right now, with even the Prime Minister asking 'Kevin who?' What astonishes me is how he continues to dig deeper. I mean, first there was the bizarre statement of exasperation that Kevin Rudd didn't take the bait on Haneef's visa cancellation. He might as well have stated, 'It's a wedge issue, Rudd. Play by the rules, you bastard!' Sad.

And now the line about Haneef's quick departure from Australia only serving to strengthen his suspicions. Right. Haneef has only been stuck in custody in Australia for four weeks, been interrogated for days on end over a phony (pun intended) charge, branded as a terrorist by the Australian Government and most of the Australian media, while his wife waits in Bangalore for him to see their new baby.

Why would he possibly want to leave Australia, other than because he's GUILTY OF SOMETHING?!

It's so pathetic I almost feel sorry for Andrews. Howard (who, yes, was obviously in on the visa cancellation) should just put him out of his misery.

Fiona: Hi David. A couple of weeks ago I watched the House of Cards trilogy for the first time. A case of déjà vue all over again, perhaps?

Only the poms.

Fiona, it (House of Cards) is an intricate thing of beauty and joy to behold, no?

David Curry:

"Andrews is about the loneliest man in Australia right now... "Kevin who?"... what astonishes me is how he continues to dig deeper".

Well, Alexandra, who was in such a pet as only he can be, sultrily demanded of the media in his several-chinned way so reminiscent of Vanstone, why a government minister responsible for an error should have to actually admit it, let alone apologise to the victim of it. Perish the thought!

So, then Andrews revealed his frustration with Rudd for the latter’s having enough brains to avoid playing Howard's silly game ( revealing and a little desperate ) and persisted with his slurs against Dr. Haneef. Rudd, however, was actually elsewhere; actually engaged in employing his time on something constructive.

He was releasing a housing policy initiative involving a sensible release of the Australian people's money for the infrastructure costs that starved of funds state governments can't afford, because it was already wasted by Peter Costello on tax cuts for the rich.

But never mind the real world, Andrews has grudges to nurture, scores to settle and escaped victims to still harm, if possible. None of this nonsense about governments being there to sensibly administer a healthy society. After all, why do we pay him the fat salary that graces his ample pockets?

So spotlight back on to Andrews. Where is this hidden evidence he keeps muttering balefully about? He perseveres with his obdurate refusal to actually confide with us this alleged "information" which, if real, would surely achieve more than a million words as to justifying his stance.

But having released Dr. Haneef back to India, how could he then release information good enough to have damned Haneef as a subversive? You mean, we had a devil locked up and let him go?

I don't think so.

Haneef's lawyers

Why, Paul, do you think Haneef's lawyer would be saying that Andrews should be super careful if he is going to release said information? (SMH report yesterday)

Sounds like an attempt to gag the Minister to me.  What is the information that Andrews would like us to have, but Haneef's lawyer seems to now object to us having?

Should we not reserve judgement on this until we actually do have that information?

A little bit of hypocrisy seems to be in the air.

give me patience...

No, Jenny.  He is not trying to "gag" the minister. 

He probably couldn't if he wanted to.  The guy jaws off more than thirty women at a time and folk can't shut even one of them up, so what hope, as regards Andrews.

He is actually suggesting that Andrews resile from his usual vile ad hominem smears against those who can't defend themselves and sticks to the issue (just for once). That way, perhaps, the country stands less chance of becoming a terrorist target.

Of course, a day is a long time in politics and today Andrews finally produced his media stunt "release" of "secret" reasons why he overruled the magistrate. Except, of course, this was all smoke and mirrors. At the end of the day, he did no such thing. He released a selectively edited version then refused to credibly explain or clarify anything, at least from the Lateline interview  this writer watched in increasing frustration, and that's not what was needed on this specific occasion!

At the end of the day Andrews is suggesting either Haneef is, or is not, a criminal.

If he felt he was a criminal, why was he so irresponsible as, how did he dare to, release him to roam at large? Slipped off now, to his secret rendezvous to Hosanna  Bin Laden's James  Bondic electronic secret mountain fortress to plot the destruction of humanity, has he?

Particularly after prosecutors and magistrates could find no case on the same evidence. And if any of that evidence wasn't released earlier, eg, to the magistrate, then why not ??

And when he did so, why did he not offer an immediate, detailed explanation, then or beforehand?

Has never had the slightest to do with "terrorism" and everything to do with its exploitation as fait accompli for the attempted misappropriation of a power appropriately located by wiser folk previously within the qualified judiciary; to a megalomaniac, power-hungry, ignorant executive.

And give me patience too Paul

Paul Walter:

It really takes some beating this inability of the left to ever keep an open mind on anything. So long as the Howard government can somehow be found to be at fault, then that is all that matters.  God give me patience. I wonder why I bother but I suppose it gives that crazy over on that other site something to nash his teeth about. What would he do to amuse himself if I did not provide some fuel for his hate.

Lets face it Paul, it would not matter if Haneef was found to have a bomb in his car, the extreme left (and I say extreme because there are a few around here who do not fit that category) would find a way to explain it away in order to fit the mindset.  

The minister could not win with them no matter what information he revealed. Demands to release information, then the lawyers says he should not, then demands again that he do, and when he does, surprise the surprise, the left finds a reason to discredit it.  Totally predictable.

And I suppose the latest from the Indian police will be treated the same way. Don't bother to wait and see if there is any basis for the dossier and its contents. Just discredit it so that the mindset stays in tact.

How about letting the police try and do their job for a change.  If you don't think any of this has anything to do with terrorism, then I do not know what bubble you live in.  If the cousins had not tried their little touch of mass murder in the UK, then Haneef would still be taking blood pressures on the gold coast. Fact Paul. Attempted terrorist act,  a fact. I suppose it is OK though, you were not one of those in the airport or the nightclub. You were not amongst the innocent intended victims.

Now I hope if anything like this happens under Rudd if he gets in, the left here will be consistent, but what is the bet silence will reign.  I have noticed that no one was prepared to take issue with the Tasmanian government's sell out to Gunns. Mustn't criticize any Labor government must we?  Does not fit the biased mindset.

Yes, give me patience Paul.

Scott Dunmore:  Most terrorists I suspect have been to a certain degree brainwashed. But it is truly disturbing that people can be so brainwashed that they would carry out a suicide mssion and mass murder. But when you see those chanting little kids in the Madrassars it is easy to see how they could be manipulated. Give me a child till..... you know the old saying.

Political brainwashing at its best is detailed in a book I read recently entitled  Mao's Last Dancer, the autobiography of Li Cunxin, a peasant boy from Mao's China who ultimately became a world renowed ballet dancer. The boy ultimately defected to the West, and the first thing he realised was that he had been brought up on a diet of total lies and that he had been brainwashed from a very early age. It is a truly fascinating story, a journey out of darkness into light if ever I read one. We are so lucky that we have never had to live under such a regime or be subjected to that level of indoctrination and brain washing. 

We have independence of thought but I am surprised at how people in a free country can so easily surrender that independence and allow themselves to become slaves to a political ideology.  Who knows what their underlying psychological makeup is.

Must be a full moon.

Jenny: "I wonder why I bother but I suppose it gives that crazy over on the other site something to nash his teeth about. What would he do to amuse himself if I did not provide some fuel for his hate."

Indeed, Jenny.The cyberspace loon must lead a sad life.The  way he casts aspersions on your character is despicable. Why not debate you openly here, where you have an opportunity to challenge his skewed views?

No! He prefers to lurk in the shadows like a  cowardly sniper taking pot shots.

Well Jen,he has  to my mind lost any credibility he may have had.

On a happier note, (or maybe not) have you had some more rain yet old girl?

In the blazing sun and all that

Kathy Farrelly: No my dear, the sun blazes down, the hot northerly is blowing and the crop is screaming for mercy. Have stopped chasing the roos off it as I doubt it will come to anything now so they might as well have it. But I regret the amount of money we spent on it. Would have been better left in the bank till we were sure the drought was really over. Everything is green but there is no guts in the paddock feed and without rain we'll be in strife with the agisted cattle once it turns hot. It is already 23 degrees. Oh well, that's farmin'.  Was it ever not thus?

By the way, if you do pray, you better get the co-ordinates right. We are not at Goulburn at the family pad, we are 600kms north by north west of that on the southern edge of the northern plains. A most brilliant sunset last night, took my breath away. And the stockman tells me it is going to rain tomorrow. So...who knows. It might just pour. So don't over do it. I would not like to drown the emus in their nest. Still found only two this year.

As for DL. He really does not bother me. It is rather sad that someone can get so in knots simply because he was challenged on the 9/11 issue, ie to effect that he should wait till Margo made her ruling. And to draw conclusions over the results of a survey he himself posted on line, simply because it contradicted his impressions was absurd.  When did I ever say I was a lefty my dear?  Never to my knowledge. So his survey was clearly most unreliable.

But I had heard about this guy long before from Ian as one who goes and does this sort of thing all the time on his blog. And funnily enough I actually feel quite sorry for the guy. I really should stop baiting him the way I do, and will try and desist. But her does rather invite it.

I had not visited his site since his last effort and to download sites up here is hardly worth the time it takes anyway. But I figured he would be off again over this Haneef matter so I went and had a look and sure enough. It is actually very interesting what he does. He takes sentences out of context, skips bits that would contradict his conclusions, and then manipulates what I say to fit his personal biases and judgments. Most disingenuous for one who talks of facts and being a historian. But who cares. I get quite amused actually. He refers sarcastically to the hand me down farms which he must think I am privileged to own. God that would be nice to actually inherit a farm instead of having to buy. He simply does not know what he is talking about. I would not be bothered engaging with him here or over there so let him have his over there if that is what turns him on.

Anyway, we are going away for a week. The lawn mower broke down on the first round, the dishwasher has packed it in, the clavinova is making a funny noise, the rotary hoe broke a belt,  and the toaster is on the way out.  Seems like it is time to take a break and take stock.

So cheers and over and out.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2006 - 2008, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of Webdiary Pty Ltd.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.

Margo Kingston

Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner