The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

msolga wrote:

Back to the Haneef case. This GetUp message was emailed to me by another A2Ker. So I'm posting it here.:

Dear friends,

As the Dr Mohammed Haneef case joins the Tampa, Children Overboard, David Hicks and Iraq in the growing list of security-related scandals, Australians are demanding to know why the lines have once again been blurred between politics, justice and national security. When will our politicians get the message that we are tired of the politics of fear?

Mr Howard and Mr Rudd, we want real leadership protecting civil liberties and security, not cynical political reactions based on opinion polls. We expect a trusted counter-terrorism system that responds to legitimate threats, not imagined or political ones. Watch this Oz in 30 Seconds ad now to join the call demanding our politicians not sacrifice the integrity of our society in the name of 'security':

http://www.getup.org.au/campaign/WereAfraidNot

I probably won't be too popular for saying this, but it is very hard to get a balance between protecting our civil liberties and security. People were calling for Dr Haneef's release very early on and at that stage nobody knew the evidence was flawed. Was it not true that a one way plane ticket was purchased immediately after the bombing ? Were not relatives involved in the bombing ? What were the AFP to do ? Let a suspect go ?
As it turns out Dr Haneef has been released and not charged. I am sorry he has been treated this way, but we all live in a different world to what we did a few years ago. How do we balance civil liberties and security ? I don't know, but we do need people like in the above letter to keep questioning the system.
OK, I 've had my say, so now you can all jump on me and beat me up.
Sad

0 Replies

It's interesting that Keelty says there may be more charges pending, and also interesting that he says his organisation has done a thorough job of investigating the matter.

Here's what I see of the police handling :

After two weeks of having Haneef in dentention, they apply for an extension of the detention period to a magistrate.

The magistrate reserves his decision for a day, to debate a point of law...to me this means "boys, there's not enough for me to extend the detention period, therefore you have 24hours to come up with something."

The next day the AFP come up with that 'odd' charge.

The evidence for that specific charge gets discreditted.

After all the accusations of incompetence and political interference are out in the open, only then does the head of the AFP then say "My boys did a thorough and professional job in investigating this matter."

The question is "Why would he say that if it's obvious to all and sundry that the evidence for that specific charge was obviously wrong?" Keelty is obviously a very intelligent man, and as police they see things in black and white...so why say this?

Well, this is a guess, but it's an opinion I held at the that Haneef was charged, and an opinion that has only threngthened after this bizarre comment from Keelty.

My guess is that Haneef was charged due to political pressure alone.

Perhaps (based on the information they had at the time) the Sim Card charge was the one thing they thought might easily hold up while they completed the investigation, but that they handn't been able to fully investigate it.

Basically, I think Keelty's comments are a shot at the politicians, without openly stating that there was political interference...which would be the end of his career, and probably that of one or two politicians as well.

...of course...this is all just a guess Shocked

0 Replies

vikorr wrote:

It's interesting that Keelty says there may be more charges pending, and also interesting that he says his organisation has done a thorough job of investigating the matter.
After all the accusations of incompetence and political interference are out in the open, only then does the head of the AFP then say "My boys did a thorough and professional job in investigating this matter."
Keelty is obviously a very intelligent man, and as police they see things in black and white...so why say this?

My guess is that Haneef was charged due to political pressure alone.

Basically, I think Keelty's comments are a shot at the politicians, without openly stating that there was political interference...which would be the end of his career, and probably that of one or two politicians as well.

...of course...this is all just a guess

Does my memory fail me or did Mr Keelty once say that Australia had become more of a target because of our involvement in Iraq ?
Then bonzai howard denied this was the case.
Mr Keelty retracted his statement next day...
Did I remember this correctly ?
If I did, it shows what political pressure can do.
I am sure the average joe would consider Australia more of a target because of our involvement in Iraq and other places and because of our subservient attitude to george dubya.

0 Replies

Well, Dr Haneef has left Australia for home. And who could blame him?
But it appears that Kevin Andrews still has some problems with his "character" in regard to his visa to work in Australia in the future. Whatever that means. The British authorities have made no request to the AFP or the Australian government for any further detention of Haneef to further their investigations. Clearly they no longer consider him to be of importance. So what is Kevin Andrews talking about then? Surely he can reveal his "character" concerns to the Australian people? It is not as if this affects security.

0 Replies

bungie wrote:

vikorr wrote:
It's interesting that Keelty says there may be more charges pending, and also interesting that he says his organisation has done a thorough job of investigating the matter.
After all the accusations of incompetence and political interference are out in the open, only then does the head of the AFP then say "My boys did a thorough and professional job in investigating this matter."
Keelty is obviously a very intelligent man, and as police they see things in black and white...so why say this?

My guess is that Haneef was charged due to political pressure alone.

Basically, I think Keelty's comments are a shot at the politicians, without openly stating that there was political interference...which would be the end of his career, and probably that of one or two politicians as well.

...of course...this is all just a guess

Does my memory fail me or did Mr Keelty once say that Australia had become more of a target because of our involvement in Iraq ?
Then bonzai howard denied this was the case.
Mr Keelty retracted his statement next day...
Did I remember this correctly ?
If I did, it shows what political pressure can do.
I am sure the average joe would consider Australia more of a target because of our involvement in Iraq and other places and because of our subservient attitude to george dubya.

No, you can trust your memory, bungie. Kelty copped a very nasty serve from his political bosses in 2004, for having the temerity to suggest that Australia could well become target for terrorist activity, as a result of of our involvement in Iraq. He quickly withdrew that statement, under extreme duress. (And look where it's gotten him! Rolling Eyes

):

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1067491.htm

0 Replies

Call for inquiry into Haneef debacle
Canberra
July 29, 2007 - 12:56PM/the AGE

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews is facing calls for an inquiry into his handling of the Mohamed Haneef case, as he defended his decision not to reinstate the Indian doctor's work visa.

..... Amid intense criticism of his intervention, Mr Andrews today defended his decision on July 16 to revoke Dr Haneef's visa and place the hospital registrar in detention after a magistrate had granted him bail.

Lawyers for Dr Haneef are fighting in the Federal Court to have his 457 visa reinstated so he can one day return to live and work in Australia.

"His visa's been cancelled and unless there is some overturning of that by the Federal Court, it's my indication that that visa will remain cancelled," Mr Andrews told the Seven Network.

"Nothing has changed in terms of the circumstances in which I had to make a decision concerning Dr Haneef." Advice from the commonwealth solicitor-general had found it was open for the government to cancel Dr Haneef's visa regardless of the charge being dropped, Mr Andrews said.

Health Minister Tony Abbott praised Mr Andrews' handling of the matter.

"I don't think Kevin's a lonely figure, I think he's a terrific bloke and I think he's done a good job," Mr Abbott told ABC TV.

But in his strongest criticisms yet, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie demanded an inquiry and disciplinary action against Mr Andrews.

Mr Beattie said there was no doubt Mr Andrews' "outrageous" decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa had been a political act.

"Now frankly, I think Kevin Andrews has got a lot to answer for," he told Network Ten.

"The prime minister should at the very least be disciplining him, and I think he should be the subject of an inquiry.

"Little wonder that Australian people are saying they're a bit suss about what happened."

Mr Beattie urged the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to publish the results of an investigation into who leaked incorrect information that Dr Haneef was being investigated for a plot to blow up a Gold Coast skyscraper.

The Australian Council for Civil Liberties said it would make a public interest complaint to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity about the handling of the Haneef case by the AFP, Director of Public Prosecutions and the immigration department. ..... <cont>

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/call-for-inquiry-into-haneef-debacle/2007/07/29/1185647721744.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

0 Replies

I'm amused by the suggestion that the prime minister is somehow exempt from any responsibility for Kevin Andrew's decisions on Haneef. In an election year the PM knew nothing of what was going on? Oh come on! :wink:

0 Replies

Commentary from my morning paper today.:

For PM, it's all in the game

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/28/rgn_andrews_wideweb__470x299,0.jpg

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews explains his decision yesterday not to reinstate Dr Haneef's visa but to agree to his request to leave Australia.
Photo: Rebecca Hallas
Jason Koutsoukis
July 29, 2007/the AGE

THE disgraceful treatment of Mohamed Haneef has all the hallmarks of a typical Howard Government political play.

0 Replies

But, to be fair, where has the federal ALP been, as all this has been going on? Sitting pretty & saying pretty much nothing of substance. (Wouldn't want to upset the polls, hey?) I seem to recollect a small "us, too" statement about an inquiry into the Haneef case, either today or yesterday. But I might have gotten that wrong. Whatever! Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Commentary from the AUSTRALIAN:

Shattering of trust hard to undo
Cameron Stewart
July 28, 2007

THE incompetence of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, government prosecutors and the police over the Mohamed Haneef case will damage the fight against terrorism in this country for years.

In the space of weeks, the Government has breached, if not shattered, the public trust it asked for when introducing sweeping laws to tackle terrorism.

Blame in the Haneef case lies at three levels.

The first culprit is Andrews, whose unnecessary and heavy-handed decision to use immigration laws to revoke Haneef's visa inflamed the case unnecessarily.

It denied natural justice and freedom to Haneef at a time when the Indian doctor -- whose passport had already been withdrawn -- posed no conceivable threat to national security.

Andrews defended the decision on the grounds that he held secret information against Haneef that was incriminating but which he could not reveal publicly.

In other words, the minister asked us to take him at his word that there was a secret silver bullet that would justify the treatment of Haneef.

The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions' decision yesterday to drop all charges against Haneef proved there was no silver bullet after all. Andrews should be condemned for abusing the trust he asked of Australians.

The second culprits in the Haneef case are the prosecutors, whose bumbling and confused presentation of evidence against Haneef would shame a law school drop-out.

The false claim that Haneef's SIM card ended up in the Jeep used in the failed Glasgow car bombing was as indefensible as it was astonishing.

The final culprits are the Australian Federal Police, which failed to notice basic discrepancies between the AFP record of interview with Haneef and the court affidavit.

The AFP is also guilty of implying -- as did Andrews -- that there was far more to the case against Haneef than had been publicly revealed.

Along with the new anti-terror laws came greater responsibilities for the Government, prosecutors and the police to ensure natural justice and basic human rights were not trampled on in the quest to catch terrorists.

In botching the Haneef case and treating an innocent man so harshly, the Government has betrayed the trust that most Australians gave it in relation to terrorism. It will be hard to undo the damage.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22147239-601,00.html

0 Replies

... & finally, from the ABC online.:

Andrews accused of smearing Haneef's name

......

.......'Suspicions'

(Dr Hanneef's lawyer) Mr Russo says he is shocked by media reports that Mr Andrews still suspects Dr Haneef of something, based on information the Minister will not disclose.

He says he is also furious that Mr Andrews is reportedly saying Dr Haneef's late night departure from Australia only increased his suspicions.

Mr Russo says Mr Andrews continues to smear his client's good name even though the charges against him were proved to be baseless.

He says Mr Andrews' decision is beyond bizarre and will mystify the great majority of Australians.

Mr Russo says it will make people overseas very suspicious about living and working in Australia, and the negative perception will take decades to erase.

Dr Haneef's lawyers are planning a court challenge to have his work visa reinstated.

Australian Council for Civil Liberties (ACCL) president Terry O'Gorman says there has been a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

"This country has treated him [Dr Haneef] extremely badly," he said.

Inquiry call

Mr O'Gorman wants the Federal Integrity Commissioner to investigate who is at fault.

"It's not good enough to say, 'Well it was a terrorism investigation, therefore anything goes,'" he said.

The Federal Opposition says there is a crisis of public confidence in Australia's anti-terrorism laws, calling for a judicial inquiry into the Haneef case.

Shadow attorney-general Joe Ludwig denies it is odd that Labor now wants a review, despite previously backing the Federal Government over the Indian doctor's month-long detention.

"What we do need is a judicial review to get to the bottom of the handling of this matter," he said.

"In respect to that, what we have done is taken on good faith the information that's been provided by both the Attorney-General [Philip Ruddock] and the Immigration Minister [Kevin Andrews] in good faith.

"So what we've now called for is an inquiry to look at their handling of the matter, both the charging, final release of Dr Mohamed Haneef, and to see in fact what happened."

The Australian Democrats have also called for an independent inquiry into the handling of the Haneef case.

Senator Natasha Stott Despoja says an independent inquiry is essential.

"Not only to look into the bungling of the Haneef case, but specifically to assess the role of police actions and practices during his arrest and detention," she said.

"The Commonwealth Ombudsman is the most appropriate person to do this, and he can act as a law enforcement ombudsman as well."

Documents behind visa decision

Senator Stott Despoja has backed Mr Andrews' plan to release the documents that led to the cancellation of Dr Haneef's visa.

Mr Andrews has indicated he will make the documents public if he can.

Senator Stott Despoja says more information about the documents given to the Mr Andrews would be welcome.

"The more transparent and accountable that the Federal Government is in relation to this matter, the better," she said.

"I think it's important that if there are discrepancies between the information, for example in the police transcript when Dr Haneef was interviewed, and the information that went into the cancelling or the revocation of Dr Haneef's visa, then I think the public needs to know about it."

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/07/29/1991209.htm?section=justin

0 Replies

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22157363-601,00.html

Quote:

FEDERAL money will be used to entice state and local governments to reform their planning and development rules under a Labor bid to knock $20,000 off the cost of 50,000 new homes.

A $500 million Housing Affordability Fund will be created to pay for infrastructure development in new estates that meet specific goals of reducing red tape, duplication and state and local charges defined by Commonwealth.

The policy, announced by Kevin Rudd in Adelaide today, would see the largest government role in urban planning since the Whitlam Government's Department of Urban and Regional Development under Tom Uren.

But Treasurer Peter Costello has dismissed the plan, saying there is no crisis in housing affordability, with more Australians able to buy a more expensive home than ever before.

Interesting. I don't think Costello has read his own governments ABS statistics.

0 Replies

That stubborn unwillingness of the Libs to acknowledge that a significant number of Australians might actually be struggling (to buy a home, to make ends meet ...) really intrigues me. Every time Costello responds in this way, often using statistics to prove that no such hardship could actually exist, he just shows that he doesn't actually know what's going on ... or can't bring himself to admit it. He should have a bit of a chat over Sunday lunch with his brother, Tim, to get some insight into how the other half live. :wink:

0 Replies

... so it's no surprise the "Howard's battlers" have beeb deserting him (& his team) in droves. No amount of quoting facts & figures at folk who can't make ends meet is going to persuade them that "they've never had it so good! It just makes the Libs appear to be badly out of touch with the real world that many people actually live in. Why do they think there have been so many people losing their homes (especially in Sydney's west) because they can't afford their mortgages?

0 Replies

Absolute saturation post-Haneef coverage in the media today. Kevin Andrews had better have something pretty convincing up his sleave about Dr Haneef's "character" flaws (which warrant the loss of his visa) if he (Andrews) is to get himself out of the pickle he's gotten himself into.:

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2007/07/29/30cartoon_gallery__470x250,0.jpg

0 Replies

Waiting for more information from Kevin Andrews.:

Chat room talk behind Haneef's visa cancellationPosted 31 minutes ago
Updated 14 minutes ago

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews says some of the information he used to make a decision to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa included an Internet chat room conversation with the doctor's brother in India.

Mr Andrews says he had been advised by solicitor-general David Bennett QC that he can release some elements of the previously secret information he used to cancel the visa.

He says in the conversation, Dr Haneef's brother says, "nothing has been found out about you", "have you got permission to leave work?" and "tell them you have a newborn daughter".

Mr Andrews also says, in the conversation, which took place the day before Dr Haneef tried to leave Australia, the doctor's brother asks, "when are you getting out?" To which Dr Haneef replied, "today."

Mr Andrews says he will not be releasing all the information at Mr Bennett's advice, due to further investigations both in Australia and overseas.

Mr Andrews also revealed information on why he says Dr Haneef was trying to leave Australia on a one-way ticket before Federal Police picked him up.

"He did not apply for leave from the hospital when he went to work at the hospital on the Monday morning and it was not until after he received two telephone calls - one from India - having been told in both calls that there was an issue about his SIM card, that he applied for leave that afternoon from the hospital," he said.

A terrorism-related charge against Dr Haneef was dropped last week and he has since returned to India.

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/07/31/1993348.htm

0 Replies

... & off to watch the news & the 7:30 report to discover what else he has to say about this.

0 Replies

So what about all you people who said he should never have been detained in the first place ? Have any of you changed your minds ?
I find this "evidence" disturbing and certainly worthy of further investigation. There is more to this than meets the eye.

Haneef warned to leave Australia quickly
By Sarah Smiles and Michelle Grattan
August 1, 2007
Muhammad Shuaib, brother of Indian doctor Mohamad Haneef, at his home in Bangalore, India.
Mohamed Haneef was warned by his brother to leave Australia quickly after the failed British bombings, according to details of an internet conversation disclosed last night by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews.

The brother, identified as Shuaib, also told Dr Haneef that "nothing has been found out about you" and said he should tell his employer that he had to go to India to visit his newborn baby. "Do not tell them anything else," he advised.
Mr Andrews said he had been advised that Dr Haneef did not apply for leave from the Gold Coast hospital where he worked until he received two phone calls, including one from India referring to his mobile phone SIM card which he had left with a cousin implicated in the foiled bomb plots.
In the chat room conversation on the afternoon before Dr Haneef tried to leave Brisbane, Shuaib said: "Aunty told him that brother Kafeel (one of the cousins implicated in the British bombing) used it (the SIM card); he is in some sort of project over there."
Asked by Shuaib when he was leaving Brisbane, Haneef replied "Today", which was July 2. The failed bombings took place on June 29 and 30. "Shuaib asked whether he had permission from the hospital to leave and what he had told the hospital to take leave," Mr Bennett's opinion recounts.
"Dr Haneef said that he had told them that his baby was born in an emergency caesarean. Shuaib said 'tell them you have to as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else'.
"Shuaib then told Dr Haneef not to delay his departure and not to let anyone else use his number in Australia or give it to anyone".

The full article here :-
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/haneef-warned-to-leave/2007/07/31/1185647901376.html

0 Replies

ooragnak wrote:

So what about all you people who said he should never have been detained in the first place ? Have any of you changed your minds ?

No. Anyone who knows me will know that I'm no fan of Islam. But anyone who's a muslim who is unfortunate enough to know someone who at a later time commits a crime, is under suspicion using the logic used in this case.

0 Replies

ooragnak wrote:

So what about all you people who said he should never have been detained in the first place ? Have any of you changed your minds ?
I find this "evidence" disturbing and certainly worthy of further investigation. There is more to this than meets the eye.

Indeed, there's more than meets the eye! & Mr Andrews should enlighten us! :wink:

I remain highly sceptical of this "evidence" because:

* It's selective evidence. The quoted bits are just a part of an email chat room discussion. I'd like to hear the whole lot.

* The conversation (in the chat room) was conducted in Urdu. I'd like the full transcript to be available in the original language & subjected to full professional & public scrutiny. Not just the bits that suit Andrews & the Liberals. I'd like to be reassured that the translation was faithful to the context of the conversation. When John Faine (774 - ABC (public) radio Melbourne) asked Andrews something like 4 times this morning if he would make a request to the AFP for this to occur, Andrews declined to commit to such a request. He seems to believe that it's not his place to ask for such a thing, while accepting the limited, edited version as the truth of the situation, apparently! (Just now, as I type, the Australian federal police have just refused to publish a complete transcript of the chat room conversation (in the original language) between Dr Haneef & his cousin.)

* This is not new evidence at all. It's already been tabled in the Qld court hearing. (which lead to Dr Haneef being granted bail.) If it was so serious, surely the court would have taken this into account?

* Dr Haneef attempted to make no less 4 phone calls to the British police on the same day that this chat room conversation took place. ( Andrews is fully aware of this. It's on record.) None of his calls were answered by the British police. What sort of suspected "terrorist" attempts to contact the very police who are investigating him at the time? Surely he was cooperating (or attempting to) with their investigation?

* The use of "selective evidence" is a time-honoured strategy of this Liberal government to support dodgy arguments on such controversial issues. You may recall Peter Reith's "children overboard" comments before the last election? They were proved totally incorrect later, as all the information was revealed through the media. But this proved a very handy scare tactic at the time!

* It's getting closer to the federal election by the minute. The "Haneef issue" has certainly not boosted the Liberals' standing with many voters, as I suspect the believed it would. Quite the opposite. I see the motivation for Kevin Andrews latest "revelations" to the media as purely political - his own survival & the Liberals' credibility. Yet another of a long, long list of scare n smear tactics. And it's probably worked on some people!

So, in a nutshell, I don't believe anything new or enlightening was presented by Kevin Andrews yesterday. Just selective bits of old information in an attempt to make himself look more competent. I wouldn't be remotely surprised if there is more to come, if this doesn't do the trick. Thank god (some of) our media is (finally!) on the ball, that's all I can say!

0 Replies

The NEXT coming Oz election thread!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know