The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5578655,00.jpg

0 Replies

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/22/23cartoon_gallery__470x291,0.jpg

0 Replies

Jeez, what next?! Rolling Eyes

:

Police deny writing in Haneef's diary
July 23, 2007/the AUSTRALIAN

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty has denied police wrote notes in the diary of accused terror suspect Mohamed Haneef.

The Australian today reported police had written the names of overseas terror suspects in Haneef's personal diary before asking the Indian doctor during an interview if he had written the potentially incriminating notes himself.

Mr Keelty said the report, based on an interview conducted shortly after Haneef's arrest on July 2, was incorrect.

"Police at no time made any notations or additions to Mr Haneef's diary," he said in a prepared statement. "As this matter is currently before the court, it is not appropriate for the AFP to elaborate in greater detail."

The Australian today reported exerts of the first interview between Dr Haneef and two officers from the AFP's counter-terrorism force, Queensland Detective Sergeant Adam Simms and federal agent Neil Thompson.

Towards the end of the interview, which occurred soon after Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane International Airport on July 2 for allegedly providing support to a terrorist organisation, Sergeant Simms states: "In your diary, you had handwritten notes. Is this your writing?"

Dr Haneef replies: "No. This is not my writing. Definitely not." ....<cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22118165-601,00.html

0 Replies

Well, well, well ... Rolling Eyes

This is rather hard to fathom.

Kevin Rudd is criticizing Peter Beattie for stating the bleeding obvious about the stuff-ups in the Haneef case. It is precisely what Rudd, himself, should have been saying. But no, he's been sitting on the fence (again!). He has no opinion on anything that could in any way risk his standing in the polls. He appears to have no opinion on anything that matters!

NEWS FLASH, KEVIN: there are many of us out in the electorate that consider the democratic traditions of this country FAR more important than whether a conservative Tweedledum or a conservative Tweedledee gets elected later this year. This is not about YOU or your ego or your desire for power. It is about something far more important!

Congratulations Peter Beattie for saying what needed to be said. Someone had to do it! Bravo!:

Rudd criticises Beattie over Haneef
Matthew Franklin | July 24, 2007
The Australian

KEVIN Rudd has rebuked Queensland Premier Peter Beattie over his criticism of the case of terror suspect Mohamed Haneef.

Speaking in Launceston this morning, Mr Rudd gave full support to the Australian Federal Police and the Howard Government over Dr Haneef, who has been charged with recklessly providing support to terrorism.

And he angrily rejected John Howard's claim yesterday that Mr Rudd was using Mr Beattie to run an anti-government political line on his behalf.

Asked whether he agreed with Mr Beattie's criticism of the AFP as keystone cops, Mr Rudd said: "No, I don't."

"When it comes to Mr Howard's and Mr Downer's hyperventilation on this, I just say I make a call on behalf of the Opposition in this country. Mr Beattie does not.

"When I have said quite clearly we believe this matter, complex as it is, has been handled appropriately by the authorities, I mean it. I've said it from day one."

After Dr Haneef was granted bail in a Brisbane court last week, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews withdrew his work visa, guaranteeing his ongoing incarceration.

This morning Mr Rudd said the Opposition had been briefed by the Government overnight on progress with the Haneef case and had also seen the evidence upon which Mr Andrews had made his decision.

"We have always acted in good faith on the briefing provided," Mr Rudd said. ..... <cont>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22125698-601,00.html

0 Replies

In my humble opinion the leader of the opposition took an even bigger fall than JH today. Something to do with credibility. Rolling Eyes

:

Oops! Howard trips up in Perth
July 24, 2007 - 1:55PM/SMH

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/24/300_howard.jpg

The Prime Minister, John Howard, stumbles as he heads to a radio interview.

Prime Minister John Howard has taken a stumble and fallen onto his hands and knees on the way to a Perth radio interview this morning... <cont>

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/oops-howard-trips-up-in-perth/2007/07/24/1185043081492.html

0 Replies

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/23/2407_editoon_gallery__470x302,0.jpg

0 Replies

Beattie wants Haneef senate inquiry
July 24, 2007 - 12:00PM
the AGE

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has called for a senate inquiry into the federal police handling of the investigation into terror suspect Mohamed Haneef.

Mr Beattie has branded the Australian Federal Police (AFP) "the Keystone Cops" and their investigation "almost farcical" after a newspaper report at the weekend said Haneef had been linked with an alleged threat to the Q1 building on the Gold Coast.

AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty has dismissed the report as inaccurate.

The AFP has charged Gold Coast-based doctor Mohamed Haneef with terrorism offences linked to the recent UK bombings.

Speaking on the Nine Network today, Mr Beattie denied trying to make political capital from the issue but said a Senate inquiry would be an appropriate forum to address it.

"Why wouldn't I get cranky on behalf of Queenslanders?" he said.

"They (the Government) should get their act together instead of attacking me, they should explain to the Australian people what's going on."

Mr Beattie's comments came as the AFP union demanded he apologise for describing the investigation into terror suspect Mohamed Haneef as akin to the "Keystone Cops".

AFP Association national president Jon Hunt-Sharman also urged Mr Beattie to retract his suggestion the investigation into Haneef was becoming farcical, describing it as a slur on their professionalism.

AAP

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/beattie-wants-haneef-senate-inquiry/2007/07/24/1185043081406.html

0 Replies

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/23/svCARTOON_gallery__470x317.jpg

0 Replies

I feel a little sorry for the AFP over this matter.

The AFP without doubt, has been acting on evidence provided by English Police. This means that the quality of their case against Haneef was almost entirely (if not entirely) dependent of the quality of information provided by an organisation outside the control of the AFP.

Think about it...English police foil terrorist acts, and provide information linking an Australian to said act...if the AFP don't act, they get hung by the public...but they do act...and the information from Brittain ends up faulty...they get hung still.

Further, it's more than probable that Brittish police provided information to the AFP that cannot be released to the public on national security grounds (ie there is an ongoing investigation). If this information existed, it would be passed on to the PM, and usually also to the Opposition leader, but not to a mere Premier of a State.

This would explain Rudd's support of the PM, and also his rebuke of Beattie. This would also explain the AFP's charges of what is an odd but relatively minor offense (lending your sim card to a relative)...which charge turned out to be in error.

Just my 2 cents

0 Replies

I tend to agree vikorr. We may not know the full story, but if we do, what a mess has been made of it.
Australia went to war with Iraq on the basis of false information about WMDs. Hope this doesn't turn out to be another blunder.

0 Replies

Dr Haneef can be thankful of one thing. He is in Australia. I am fairly certain he won't be tortured or taken out the back and shot as would happen in other countries. If he is innocent of any crime, he will be released and may even be compensated in some way. If he is innocent, I am sorry he has been treated in this way. If he is guilty of aiding or assisting illegal acts, it is well that he was detained and not allowed to flee the country.
Let's not judge Dr Haneefs guilt or otherwise or the AFPs role before the full facts are known. The media does not have all the answers.
911 has a lot to answer for, for our loss of freedom and other rights we took for granted. How do we balance one against the other ? I don't know.
Just my tuppence worth .

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

I feel a little sorry for the AFP over this matter.

The AFP without doubt, has been acting on evidence provided by English Police. This means that the quality of their case against Haneef was almost entirely (if not entirely) dependent of the quality of information provided by an organisation outside the control of the AFP.

Think about it...English police foil terrorist acts, and provide information linking an Australian to said act...if the AFP don't act, they get hung by the public...but they do act...and the information from Brittain ends up faulty...they get hung still.

Further, it's more than probable that Brittish police provided information to the AFP that cannot be released to the public on national security grounds (ie there is an ongoing investigation). If this information existed, it would be passed on to the PM, and usually also to the Opposition leader, but not to a mere Premier of a State.

This would explain Rudd's support of the PM, and also his rebuke of Beattie. This would also explain the AFP's charges of what is an odd but relatively minor offense (lending your sim card to a relative)...which charge turned out to be in error.

Just my 2 cents

I am equally perturbed that this whole thing appears to be a furphy, based on no evidence.

However, the alleged offence isn't really "odd" or "minor".

"Clean" mobile phones amongst plotters....and definitely terrorists.... of all kinds are highly prized, as they can be traced via known ones.

If Hanaff knew what his cousin was up to, and gave him a Sim card unknown to counter terrorism people, he was heavily involved in supporting the plot.

Not to mention it was this phone that was, I presume, to be used to set off the bomb.

However, I gather his sim card was NOT in the phone in the vehicle.

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

I feel a little sorry for the AFP over this matter.

The AFP without doubt, has been acting on evidence provided by English Police. This means that the quality of their case against Haneef was almost entirely (if not entirely) dependent of the quality of information provided by an organisation outside the control of the AFP.

Think about it...English police foil terrorist acts, and provide information linking an Australian to said act...if the AFP don't act, they get hung by the public...but they do act...and the information from Brittain ends up faulty...they get hung still.

Actually, the last I read, the British police were somewhat astonished (& sniggering a bit) about the pickle that the AFP had gotten themselves into over Haneef. (Sorry, I'm too tired after work to pour over old news releases.)

How closely have you been following this? Have you read the transcripts of Haneef's interrogation by the AFP? And have you noticed that the AFP got a number of very incriminating "facts" badly wrong? Have you noticed that there have been incriminating "leaks" since, that were totally incorrect (& have been denied)? What do you think about Haneef's visa being revoked after the court had granted him bail (putting him in detention)? Is this all OK with you?

Why do you feel sorry for an organization that has stuffed up so badly? And BTW, I doubt that the the Australian investigation is actually directly connected to the British one. Certainly there has been no show of support from the British to the AFP's position. The British appear to have been a damn sight more professional & less political in their investigation.

0 Replies

dlowan wrote:

..However, I gather his sim card was NOT in the phone in the vehicle.

It wasn't. It was miles away & not in the hands of one of the bombers.

0 Replies

DPP reviewing material in Haneef case
Posted 54 minutes ago
Updated 42 minutes ago

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Damian Bugg, says he is personally reviewing all the material in the Mohamed Haneef case.

The Gold Coast-based doctor is in custody in a Brisbane jail after being charged with recklessly providing support to a terrorist organisation.

Mr Bugg says there are matters which have developed as the case has progressed, but he did not spell out which aspects of the case he is referring to.

He says the best way to examine it is to have a broader review of the available material and the proceedings to date.

Earlier today, Haneef's lawyer, Peter Russo, said that the wording of his client's charge should be changed.

He now welcomes the review of Haneef's case, but says it is too early to tell what the review means.

"I don't want to jump the gun because really it's early days," he said.

"I don't know how long or how much material the director has to sift through, but I just don't want to count my chickens before they hatch.

"It will take a process and I'm sure I'll be informed quickly [when] he makes his decision."

The Government has rejected calls for a Senate inquiry into the handling of the case.

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/07/25/1988306.htm

0 Replies

ooragnak wrote:

Let's not judge Dr Haneefs guilt or otherwise or the AFPs role before the full facts are known. The media does not have all the answers.

The Howard government was more than happy to use the media to manipulate public opinion over the Tampa incident & "children over-board". And it worked a treat at the time. In this (Haneef) incidence the government is suddenly talking about adherence to "proper procedures". Most of the reporting in the media has been about serious inconsistencies in the Haneef case. That is not trial by media. It is saying that we expect a damn sight better from our government & our federal police when it comes to the law.

(Hello, ooragnak. Welcome to A2K & pleased to meet you!)

0 Replies

A more detailed report on the DPP's review.:

DPP announces review of accused terrorist
July 25, 2007/the AUSTRALIAN

THE Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions has announced a review of all material relating to the case against accused terrorism supporter Mohamed Haneef.

Terror suspect Mohamed Haneef's relative Imran Siddiqui and lawyer Rene Russo at a doorstop at Parliament House in Canberra.
"Clearly not every matter which is prosecuted by my office is reviewed by me," DPP Damian Bugg QC said.

"But there are matters which have developed as this case has progressed which I am examining, and a broader review of the available material and the proceedings to date is the best way to examine these matters appropriately."

Mr Bugg promised to make a statement about the Haneef case when the review was complete.

The DPP review follows a series of concerns about inconsistencies in the case against Haneef, an Indian doctor charged with supporting a terrorist organisation.

The Gold Coast hospital registrar is alleged to have given a mobile phone SIM card to a relative later allegedly involved in a failed plot to bomb central London and Glasgow airport.

It was revealed last week that, contrary to evidence presented to the Brisbane Magistrates Court by prosecutors, Haneef's SIM card was not found in the burning jeep that crashed into a terminal at Glasgow airport.

Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty was also forced to deny reports police had written the names of overseas terror suspects on Haneef's personal diary, and that Haneef was being investigated for plotting to bomb a Gold Coast skyscraper.

Prime Minister John Howard yesterday rejected calls for a Senate inquiry into the case amid mounting concern about the handling of the police investigation, which Queensland Premier Peter Beattie has likened to the ''Keystone Cops''.

Earlier today, Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo called on prosecutors to immediately amend the wording of the charge against his client to address what he described as technical inaccuracies.

The DPP has agreed to the change but wanted to delay dealing with it until Haneef's next court appearance on August 31.

"The charge as it reads isn't correct and from my correspondence with (prosecutors) they realise that, so therefore they were going to fix it up on August 31,'' Mr Russo said.

"That's basically not good. I want it fixed now.

''(The charge) basically remains the same but it's just deficient in the way it's been drafted.''

Mr Russo and Haneef's cousin, Imran Siddiqui, were in Canberra today for talks with India's high commissioner, Prabhat Prakash Shukla, who has previously expressed New Delhi's concerns about whether the Indian national will receive a fair trial.

Haneef was granted bail in a Brisbane court last week only for Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to cancel his visa hours later - guaranteeing his detention in Australia until his court proceedings are finalised.

AAP

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22132667-601,00.html

0 Replies

... & today's AGE editorial, concerning Mr No Opinion On Anything Vaguely Controversial ....:

Will the real opposition leader please stand up
July 25, 2007

So focused is Kevin Rudd on holding on to his lead in the polls that Labor refuses to challenge the Government on any issue that might prove awkward.

THE man who would be prime minister, Kevin Rudd, made an odd complaint yesterday. Accusing John Howard of running a scare campaign against Labor on the economy and unions, the Opposition Leader said: "Mr Howard seems to be acting more and more like an opposition than a government at the moment." Aside from implying that one person constitutes a government, or opposition, this invites an obvious retort, given an edge by Monday's Tasmanian forestry announcement that yet again aligned Labor with the Coalition. Mr Rudd is acting less and less like an opposition leader as he focuses on protecting a double-digit lead in the opinion polls just months from an election. Yes, Labor has prodded the Government into action in many areas ?- workplace laws, education, skills training, broadband and climate change among them. As for the detail that Labor has yet to offer, oppositions lack the policy resources available to incumbents. But now that Mr Rudd has the public's attention, he is taking no chances, avoiding all awkward confrontations, to the point of assuming a Howard-Lite persona as the original stumbles in search of his lost mojo.

Ironically, Mr Rudd's concessions to the logging industry did not trigger fresh accusations of bowing to union power, although that is clearly the case. The forestry union helped swing two Tasmanian seats to the Coalition in 2004 after Labor leader Mark Latham's last-minute promise to protect old-growth forests. Of course, bipartisanship can be perfectly justifiable, but Mr Rudd's support for a new $2 billion pulp mill is pure expediency, given that it is subject to court action over an environmental review process that has been politically compromised and is dubious at best.

Consider, too, how often this year Labor has avoided asking the questions that oppositions are meant to ask in the interests of good, accountable government. The year began with the Government launching a hastily cobbled-together Murray-Darling water plan; Mr Rudd swiftly gave in-principle support. He did the same when the Government intervened in Northern Territory Aboriginal affairs, despite the uncertain implications for indigenous land title and other rights. Mr Rudd went so far as to pre-empt Mr Howard by announcing Labor would extend the quarantining of welfare payments to all parents who neglected children.

Even when clear-cut democratic and legal principles are at stake, as in the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, Mr Rudd says the Government's handling of it, "on the basis of the information we've been given, is appropriate". No way is Labor going to expose itself to even the most tenuous charge of being "soft on terror". Mr Howard betrayed frustration when he accused Labor of playing a "double game" by using Queensland Premier Peter Beattie as an agent to attack the Government.

Mr Howard well understands this cynical game of me-tooism. Mr Howard perfected the small-target approach in 1996, when Paul Keating's time was clearly up. Now Mr Rudd has judged the public mood for change is with him. As the leaders hit the hustings all over the country ?- is Australia running on autopilot? ?- the electoral calculations involved in every announcement are obvious. Questions of good public policy become almost immaterial. But Mr Rudd, in particular, risks losing the new leader's advantage of unsullied credibility. And despite another boost from an outbreak of Coalition disunity, Labor discomfort at all the compromises could yet turn to dissent.

Australian democracy also confronts a deeper problem when leaders refuse to stand up for principle and state clearly what they believe in: in short, to show leadership that leaves voters in no doubt about the alternatives being put to them. That is part of the reason for voters' anger at WorkChoices. The Coalition Government gave them no inkling at the 2004 election of the changes to come. Yet even as Labor reminds voters of that, it blurs electorally inconvenient differences. In doing so, Kevin Rudd's party fails the basic obligation of an alternative government, which is to spell out how electing it would make a difference.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/editorial/will-the-real-opposition-leader-please-stand-up/2007/07/24/1185043111366.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

0 Replies

Quote:

Not to mention it was this phone that was, I presume, to be used to set off the bomb.

However, I gather his sim card was NOT in the phone in the vehicle.

It wasn't. I can only presume that the information that it was in the phone used by the terrorists was supplied to the AFP by the Brittish Police. If not, then this is indeed a stuff up by the AFP.

It is an odd charge in that it is not hard (in Australia at least) to get a prepaid mobile phone under a false name.

Further, say it was a prepaid card In leaving the UK, Haneef would have no more use for the credits on it, and giving the card to a relative only makes sense. I could even think up a reasonable excuse along the same lines for a sim card on a plan.

So, an odd charge.

Quote:

How closely have you been following this? Have you read the transcripts of Haneef's interrogation by the AFP?

No I haven't read the transcripts of the investigation. If you have to hand the parts you are referring to, it would be interesting to see the bits you have found.

Quote:

And have you noticed that the AFP got a number of very incriminating "facts" badly wrong?

On the face of it, I would say that there are only two two central facts to a charge like that:
1. Haneef gave his Sim Card to a relative involved in a terrorist plot
2. The sim card was used by said terrorist relative

If you are talking about ?'facts' relating to something else, you will have to be more specific (ie, are you talking about the charge, or the character assassination, or something else?)

Quote:

Have you noticed that there have been incriminating "leaks" since, that were totally incorrect (& have been denied)? What do you think about Haneef's visa being revoked after the court had granted him bail (putting him in detention)? Is this all OK with you?

Yes, I am aware of the leaks, and I don't agree with any such leaks.

Quote:

What do you think about Haneef's visa being revoked after the court had granted him bail (putting him in detention)? Is this all OK with you?

Considering most of the country (including me) doesn't have access to the information on which that decision was made, I don't have enough information to know if it would be okay by me.

Quote:

Why do you feel sorry for an organization that has stuffed up so badly?.

I explained that in the email you just replied to. Are you asking for some further clarification, and if so, what?

0 Replies

Ah, vikorr,

I just reread my post (which you've just responded to.) It sounds quite abrupt. I think I've just totally HAD all the lies & fabrications, the non-core promises, etc, etc, etc, of the past 11 years. This last episode was just one too many, I think. Overload. (Perhaps I should just take a cold shower & chill out? :wink: ) Anyway, sorry to be rude. I usually try not to be. Anyway, I think I've said all I want to say about this for a bit. I'd just be repeating myself anyway. Which is kind of boring to anyone reading. Maybe tomorrow? :wink:

0 Replies

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know