For the howardhaters, those that would rather have kids continued to be r@ped and terrorists set free.

Here are the results of a decisive man who will protect you.

"Haneef charged with 'supporting terrorism' Font Size: Decrease Increase Print Page: Print July 14, 2007
GOLD Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef has been charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation, the Australian Federal Police (AFP) said in a statement today.

Police will allege Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef supported a terrorist organisation by "recklessly'' giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning car bomb attacks in the UK.

Dr Haneef, an Indian national who worked as a registrar at Gold Coast Hospital, will today face Brisbane Magistrates Court.

"The specific allegation involves recklessness rather than intention,'' Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said today.

"The allegation being that he was reckless about some of the support he provided to that group, in particular the provision of his SIM card for the use of the group.''

There is a presumption against bail for people charged with terrorism offences and Mr Keelty confirmed police would oppose bail.

The maximum penalty for the terrorism support offence is 15 years jail.

Dr Haneef has been held in custody in Brisbane since his arrest at the city's airport on July 2 in connection with foiled bomb attacks in London and Glasgow.

The Gold Coast Hospital doctor is related to two men detained in the UK over the plot, Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed, who allegedly drove a Jeep Cherokee into Glasgow airport.

Police today had 12 hours to question Dr Haneef before they had to either release him or charge him.

He has been held in custody for 12 days, under new Australian anti-terrorism laws. He was arrested at Brisbane airport on July 2 with a one-way ticket to India.

Dr Haneef told authorities he was on his way to Bangalore to visit his wife, who had just given birth.

Police yesterday withdrew a request for an extension of time to question Dr Haneef, prompting wide speculation he would be released without charge today.

Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo told the ABC he had spent all night at federal police headquarters in Brisbane where his client was questioned.

He said Dr Haneef had been transferred to the Brisbane watchhouse this morning.

His client is very upset by the news and will apply for bail, Mr Russo said.

Dr Haneef is the second person to be charged in over the failed UK attacks. The other is Bilal Abdullah, who is accused of conspiring to set off explosions in Britain.

Dr Haneef reportedly shared a house in the British city of Liverpool with Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed for up to two years before Dr Haneef moved to Australia, and remained in contact by phone and online messaging after that.

Police have also said they suggest a possible link between Dr Haneef and Mr Abdullah.

Australian officials have previously said Dr Haneef was arrested after his mobile phone's SIM card was found in the possession of one of the British suspects, later identified by media reports as Sabeel Ahmed.

Official documents cited by The Australian newspaper yesterday said Dr Haneef gave the SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed before he moved to Australia from Britain last year so that his cousin could take advantage of free minutes left on his mobile phone plan. "

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22072582-1702,00.html

First of all, Howard didn't arrest the guy.

Also, how is giving away something as simple as a SIM card ever 'reckless'? They acknowledged that there was no 'intent,' so are we supposed to confirm that people aren't terrorists now before giving them anything? It's not like he was giving away explosives or something lethal.

howardhaters have held against howard the new antiterrorism laws. This is the first fruits of it.

Would you ever give your sim card to anyone ?
Sure, lend them your phone to make a call. But give a sim card ? why ?
I am assumiong the AFP have found proof on his puter and calls that he was aware of what they were planning. Then he lent a sim card ? undoubtly there will be emails to be decyphered.

haneef was on work roster the next day, he has his medical certificated with him and had just left his falt as though he was going down the local shop.
He was scarpering ASAP following a few phone calls to/from his relatives concerning his sim card being used in a terrorist atttack.

Give him 15 years.  Thanks john for protecting me

They were Haneef's cousins.   He "recklessly" gave his cousin his old Sim Card.  I have given my brother a couple of my Sim Cards in the past and thought nothing of it.

The fact is he was kept in prison for 12 days without charge and now they've come up with this - he is unlikely to get a conviction.  In the meantime his name, age, profession and photo has been distributed all over the world - his young wife and his family are being persecuted relentlessly in India.

If this Government is going to get serious about catching "terrorists" - why do they give the Media a detailed description  and progress report of their prisoners.  This should have been kept quiet - not shouted from the rooftops that Australia has caught a terrorist.

Who will give this young man his life back if the charge is dropped?

Sure, lend them your phone to make a call. But give a sim card ? why ?

So they can use the number? A friend of a friend gave me an old mobile phone, sim card and all I believe. I jsut wanted it for the battery though.

I am assumiong the AFP have found proof on his puter and calls that he was aware of what they were planning.

Then they would have him on a less rediculous charge than 'recklessly' giving something away.

"Mr Porritt told the court yesterday Haneef had "turned a blind eye" to the fact he had left the SIM card with people involved in terrorism.

He said Haneef also spoke to a relative of Sabeel Ahmed, who along with his brother Kafeel Ahmed, has been arrested over the London and Glasgow car bomb attempts.

Mr Porritt said that after a phone conversation, Haneef's father-in-law booked him a one-way flight to India that day.

Mr Porritt said Haneef knew he faced "the high jump" in Australia and was fleeing this jurisdiction without any intention of coming back, taking with him his medical qualification documents."

http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,22074572-3102,00.html


mantra - I assume your brother is not involved with terrorists ?
Out of curiosity, why give someone a sim card ?
The fact is, charges have been laid. The AFP must have good evidence.
who will give back the victims of terrorist  attacks their lives back ?

freediver - why use that number ? as with mantra, your friend did not think you were a terrorist, I assume ?
the charge is providing meterial support for terrotists.
Is it also a charge to not report them ? Assuming he had knowledge of their plans ?

The fact is, charges have been laid. The AFP must have good evidence.

Non sequitor. The charge is absurd. This is worse than the David Hicks debacle. At least he did something wrong which they could fall back on when the main charges fell through.

freediver - why use that number ?

Mutual friends, easier than setting up a new account. I took over the phone and phone number of a family member once. I still have it. It was eassier on the paperwork, I got a better deal which no longer existed for new customers. It already had a lot of numbers programmed into it. Plus when people called who didn't know about the new number I usually knew who they were and could update them.

as with mantra, your friend did not think you were a terrorist, I assume ?

There is no indication that Haneef did either. They already conceded that there was no 'intent.'

"Haneef also spoke to a relative of Sabeel Ahmed, who along with his brother Kafeel Ahmed, has been arrested over the London and Glasgow car bomb attempts. "    and    "Haneef knew he faced "the high jump" in Australia and was fleeing this jurisdiction without any intention of coming back, taking with him his medical qualification documents."

tells me  he was aware of what they were up to. People who are guilty run.

Sprint, that was after he gave them the SIM card and after the attacks. Obviously if he had advanced warning he would have left before the attacks. Innocent people do run when they fear injustice.

obvioulsy it was after the sim support and attacks   .


His terrorist cousin told him "there is a trouble with your sim." and he scarpered.
he thought he was in the clear over here in aussie till being told that, then he realised the EVIDENCE.

was the sim in the bomb ?   do they use a phone to set it off ?

idiot judge allowed him bail. he will be being watched anyway.  

Evidence of what? Nothing. The police even admitted that. Of course he should get bail.

Even the judge agrees that the case is absurd. People charged with that offense are not supposed to get bail except under exceptional circumstances. The judge must have ruled that the weakness of the case made it exceptional.

Also, if the laws are as 'necessary' as Howard claims, why is he willing to comment on them but refusing to comment on their application to Haneef? If they were necessary and even needed strengthening, why can't the man responsible for them justify them for this case?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22077963-29277,00.html

That's because under the federal government legislation, those charged with terrorism offences can only be granted bail in "exceptional circumstances''.

The barrister representing Dr Haneef, Stephen Keim SC, argued in Brisbane Magistrates Court yesterday the "extremely weak'' case against his client was enough to justify an "exceptional circumstance''.

Regardless of that decision Mr Russo wants terror laws overhauled to prevent others facing the same treatment as his client.

"There is no balance in our legislation, there is no balance for an even-minded person to look at the facts and make a decision.''

However, Prime Minister John Howard defended the laws today and even spoke of strengthening them.

"I believe that the present laws are all necessary. I have an open mind as to whether they might need to be strengthened in the future.

"I won't talk about Haneef's case, but the present laws were all necessary. All of them. To the very last letter.''

Excellent - haneef is still locked up

Haneef detained after bail win
Email Print Normal font Large font Phillip Coorey and Joel Gibson
July 16, 2007 - 3:01PM

Page 1 of 3 | Single page

Photo: Gavin Bright, Nine Network

Latest related coverage
Two freed over British car bombings
Video: Haneef's visa revoked
Advertisement
AdvertisementThe Gold Coast doctor charged with recklessly lending a SIM card to terrorists has had his 457 visa revoked and been detained in an immigration detention centre.

Mohamed Haneef was released on $10,000 bail this morning but Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said the doctor had been taken into detention in Brisbane and will be transferred to the Villawood detention centre.

Haneef is still innocent in the eyes of the law but Mr Andrews said he was satisfied the Indian-born doctor had failed the "character test".

"These are two separate matters," he said. "The courts have their duties and obligations. I have to look at whether Dr Haneef passes the character test."

He said after conversations with the Australian Federal Police, he was satisfied Haneef had an association with persons involved with criminal conduct.

In an often heated exchange, Mr Andrews fielded  questions from reporters.

"Doesn't this go against the legal rule that we've established over a thousand years? That someone is innocent until proven guilty. You're pre-empting a judgement on his innocence,'' asked one reporter.

Mr Andrews: This is unrelated to ...

Reporter: How is this unrelated, Minister ...

Mr Andrews: Do you want to hear the answer?

Reporter: Yes.

Mr Andrews: This is unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane. This is a direct responsibility set out in the migration act, this is not the first person, indeed, whose visa has been cancelled.

Mr Andrews responded with the same answer to numerous questions, all probing the legality of his actions, given that Dr Haneef was currently under a criminal charge.

Catch-22

"What chances does this fellow have of gaining justice in this country when he faces criminal charges in one court, and in another place, in a sort of a Catch-22, a minister of the Crown declares that he's a terrorist?" asked one reporter.

"What sort of chances does he have after these comments by you?" asked another.

Mr Andrews said he was not commenting on the legal charge, nor attempting to interfere in it, he was simply exercising his duties under the Migration Act.

"The magistrate in Brisbane has a set of responsibilities which she has carried out and I'm making no comment whatsoever on the magistrate or any decision made by the magistrate in Queensland.


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/haneef-detained-after-bail-win/2007/07/16/1184438190629.html

there is more in the article, important thing is terrorists and suppoters are being dealt with immediately and strictly

whyever are the reporters sympathising with a terrorist supporter ???

Now that's just dodgy. As much as Kevin Andrews pretends he isn't, he is interfering in a criminal investigation and trying to take justice into his own hands. Haneef was not here illegally. If Andrews wants to revoke his right to be here then he should send him home, not lock him up.

Sprint, standing up for the principles of justice on which this country is founded is not the same thing as sympathising with a terrorist supporter. That's a tired old line that gets trotted out every time people want to deny someone a fair go.

"after conversations with the Australian Federal Police, he was satisfied Haneef had an association with persons involved with criminal conduct. " - from all accounts, undeniable.

"Mr Andrews said he was satisfied the Indian-born doctor had failed the "character test".


Associating with terrorists gives anyone a big X in their character test on my scale.
You ok with it ??
My understanding is he will be sent home.

If he's not an Australian citizen, sending him home is fine. Putting him in jail isn't.

Is the government crying wolf again because an election is looming?  Do we all have to be scared again because the terrorists are here - now - in your backyard?

The fact that Haneef had his visa taken off him and is being put in an immigration detention camp - immediately after a Court of Law granted him bail is a joke.  

If this is a sign of what is to come in Australia - presumed guilty until proved innocent rgardless of any court decision - then we have got an arrogant government who write their own rules and regulations and are above every other law in the land.

This is all for show that much is obvious.

[quote]
mantra wrote on Jul 16^th, 2007 at 5:14pm:

The fact that Haneef had his visa taken off him and is being put in an immigration detention camp - immediately after a Court of Law granted him bail is a joke.

How is it? He surely would have bolted.  Great move by the government.

He surely would have bolted.

That's up to the magistrate to consider in granting someone bail.

Excellent example by the Govt. Sends the correct message to every muslim here.

Associate with any terrorists anywhere in the world and we will toss your stench out of Aussie, or lock you up for 15 years.


Perfect, I bet france and england had said the same thing years ago .


That's why I love John Howard.

Quote:

That's why I love John Howard

Sprintcyclist - he brought most of them here in the first place.  This Indian Doctor was brought here under the (forgotten the number) guest work visa, because places for medicine in our universities were drastically cut back in Howard's first term of office.

Have a look at the advertising.  All these guests - are not guests - they are being offered permanent residency.


Quote:

Immigration to Australia as a skilled worker grants instant permanent residence status in Australia, providing you meet the basic requirements under the Australian skilled worker points system. Since the pass mark increased in April 2004, Australia have made numerous changes to their skilled worker migration system - even introducing a new lower pass mark for applicants wishing to emigrate to regional areas of Australia! Find out if you are eligible for emigration to Australia as a skilled worker by sending your CV in now for a free assessment

Now they've even offered a lower pass mark so anyone can get in.  You can love John Howard for that.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneefs-barrister-attacks-govt-secrecy/2007/07/17/1184559741919.html

Dr Mohamed Haneef's barrister has accused the federal government of using anti-terror laws to conceal their investigation from the public.

On Tuesday, barrister Stephen Keim said the government was abusing the controversial anti-terror laws.

"The record with regard to secret information is that it's secret when it's convenient to the Commonwealth," Mr Keim told ABC Radio.

"The experienced barristers who appeared for the AFP were given the opportunity, four or five times, to put forward the basis on which it was said that my client's involvement with these people was anything other than innocent.

"All they could say was he lived with these people ... he associated with these people, he's their second cousin, that's as high as the AFP was able to put it.

"Now the minister is making his decision on the basis of what the AFP tells him and on what he says is secret information and yet we're seeing what is secret information published in the newspapers today."

A major leak from the investigation into Haneef was published in News Ltd papers, and Mr Keim said he had seen nothing to suggest one report that Haneef had a more than trivial role in the thwarted attacks.

"If they had information that was condemnatory of my client why would they only charge him with recklessness, why wouldn't they charge him with knowing that it was a terrorist organisation?"

Prominent Australian lawyer, Julian Burnside, QC, said Mr Andrews had abused the Migration Act and trashed one of the core principles of democracy in an effort to keep Dr Haneef locked up.

The Act provides for a person to be deported once their visa has been cancelled, but the government has said the Gold Coast-based doctor will be held in immigration detention while his court proceedings are underway - which could take years.

"They want to keep him here for trial. They waited to cancel his visa until they saw whether he got bail," Mr Burnside told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

"If he didn't get bail then they weren't going to cancel the visa.

"This is a misuse of power in bad faith for the explicit purpose of trumping a magistrate's order that he should be let out on bail.

Mr Burnside said Haneef faced little hope of preparing an effective defence while he was locked in immigration detention, and it would be difficult for him to receive a fair trial.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneef-challenge-may-be-successful/2007/07/16/1184559699384.html

Experts say a legal challenge to Immigration Minister Kevin Andrew's decision to cancel Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef's visa may prove successful.

Mr Barns said he doubted Mr Andrews' decision to cancel the visa could be considered "reasonable" - the terminology required under the Migration Act.

"Mr Andrews' decision can be challenged on the grounds of bias or taking into account irrelevant considerations in making his decision - this includes political considerations," he said.

"It is doubtful that Mr Andrews' decision is reasonable as he suggests, given the weakness of the case against Dr Haneef and that he is (an) innocent man."

The decision to cancel Haneef's visa seemed to be based on him being a relative of men implicated in the UK terrorism attacks, which was "unsatisfactory", he said.

And he rejected Mr Andrews' assertions that the decision to cancel his visa was not prejudging Haneef's guilt or innocence.

"He's saying that Haneef's visa's cancelled because he's caught up in this, whereas the bail was granted because of a judicial finding that it wasn't," Dr Lynch told Sky News.

Cameron Murphy, the secretary of the Australian Council for Civil Liberties (ACCL), said the government was undermining the independence of the court system.

"The reason we have an independent court system is so these incredibly important decisions are made for the right reasons, and aren't subject to political interference," he said.

Democrats senator Andrew Bartlett said the decision was a perversion of the Migration Act and a clear contempt of the court.

"A country where justice is not allowed to take its course and the presumption of innocence is reversed on a government whim is not a democracy - it's a dictatorship," he said.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Visa-of-terror-accused-Haneef-cancelled/2007/07/16/1184559699205.html

Police allege the Indian national recklessly, rather than intentionally, provided a mobile phone SIM card to a relative who was later involved in plotting car bomb attacks in the UK.

Mr Andrews' move contradicted statements from Prime Minister John Howard and Attorney-General Philip Ruddock that Haneef was entitled to the presumption of innocence, he said.

What waffle, it's just what a lawyer is meant to say.

even in india they are questioning why the terrorist haneef was scarpering so rapidly.

We should evict/lock up ALL islamists in Aussie.
They are inciting sedition and violence and consorting with criminals.

They are NOT welcomed here

Yes they are.

Quote:

They are NOT welcomed here

Why were they invited then?

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneef-knew-nothing-of-failed-bombings/2007/07/18/1184559815272.html

Terror suspect Mohamed Haneef has told Australian Federal Police (AFP) he knew nothing about the failed bombings linked to his second cousins in London and Glasgow.

Dr Haneef told AFP Agent Adam Simms, he had never had firearms, explosives or terrorist training and denied he had ever been asked "to take part in jihad or anything that could be considered similar to jihad".

A 142-page transcript of a taped Australian Federal Police interview with Dr Haneef was leaked to The Australian newspaper on Tuesday, News Limited reported.

Dr Haneef, 27, describes jihad as a life struggle rather than a violent revolution.

Australian intelligence authorities are investigating a report in the Indian newspaper The Asian Age that alleged Dr Haneef was a senior organiser for the now-banned group the student Islamic Movement of India, when he was at medical school.

Dr Haneef has denied the allegation, his solicitor says.

He has admitted to obtaining a loan of STG200-300 ($468-702) in June 2004 from Glasgow bombing suspect Kafeel Ahmed, for a medical qualifying exam.

"When I asked him (when to) pay him back, he said just give it to any of the poor in India," Dr Haneef said.

Haneef detention 'concerns' Indian govt

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneef-detention-concerns-Indian-govt/2007/07/17/1184559784944.html

The Indian government has publicly weighed into the debate over the continued detention of Gold Coast-based doctor Mohamed Haneef.

It comes as Haneef's lawyers prepare to launch an appeal in the Federal Court against Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' cancellation of his visa.

The Indian government has now formally expressed its concern about Haneef's continued detention.

Australia's High Commissioner to New Delhi John McCarthy was summoned to a meeting at India's External Affairs Ministry on Tuesday.

"The External Affairs Ministry has expressed its concern to the Australian government that Dr Mohamed Haneef should be treated fairly and justly under Australian law," ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said.

McCarthy later told the NDTV television network: "India showed concern. It made absolutely clear that it had no truck with terrorism."

Doctor held over UK plot to restart work

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Doctor-held-over-UK-plot-to-restart-work/2007/07/17/1184559783031.html

A doctor arrested by British police after the foiled London and Glasgow car bombings is preparing to return to work in a Scottish hospital.

The junior doctor was released without charge by counter-terrorism police on Sunday after being held for about two weeks and can now return to work at the Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, Renfrewshire.

A colleague, who was arrested at the same time and also later released without charge, has already finished his attachment to the same hospital and is not expected to return to work.

Police arrested the pair, aged 25 and 28, after finding receipts from the purchase of propane canisters in a communal dustbin, the newspaper said.

But they were released after there was nothing to link the men with the purchase of the canisters.

You have to wonder what is going on with this Government.  Dr. Haneef's cousin was released - yet Haneef is still being charged with "reckless support of terrorism" - although his cousin is not charged with being a terrorist.

If there were other facts that could be used against Haneef - why didn't the AFP give brief details of these suspicions to the Magistrate before bail was granted?

Now he's being held in prison - his name is blackened - his family is being tormented and most Muslims will only hate Westerners even more - all this so that the Government looks "tough on terrorism".

Regardless of what the anti-Muslim tribe says - it is US & UK Foreign Policy which is responsible for this.  We've had some terrible world leaders, but the US & Australian leaders today can be included amongst the worst.

So what would either of you do if your cousin rang you and said "There is a problem with your sim?"

Leave the country ASAP?

If I was in a foreign country full of rednecks and my sim had just been used to blow something up, then yes. We have already demonstrated an overwillingness to put justice aside in the pursuit of vengence.

If your sim had been used to blow something up, you had provided material support for terrorists.
Leaving the country ASAP is the proof of your preknowledge and complicity.
Justice is being done. Vengance would be to kill haneef.

You have proved nothing.

If your sim had been used to blow something up, you had provided material support for terrorists.

Only in a meaningless semantic sense. Provide you did not knowingly support terrorists, you would be no more guilty than the salesman who sold the 4WD or the service station employee who sold the gas bottles, or the checkout chick who sold them bread. The law does not expect people to have a crystal ball.

Did the terrorist ring the 4WD or gas bottle salesmen to tell them there is a problem with their car/bottles?
Did either of those try to leave the country ASAP ?

The law expects people to not be terrorists and to not support them and to not conceal them.
Do you ?

No, and neither did Haneef. Plenty of people would have innocently helped these guys. He made no attempt to conceal what had happened.

Did either of those try to leave the country ASAP ?

No, they were locals and unlikely to be the victime of injustice.

Did the terrorist ring the 4WD or gas bottle salesmen to tell them there is a problem with their car/bottles?

Why do you ask?

---

very suspicious indeed:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneef-spoke-to-Ahmed-about-baby/2007/07/19/1184559897521.html

Mohamed Haneef spoke to his second cousin Sabeel Ahmed in an internet chatroom about the birth of his first child just days before the attack on Glasgow airport.

Details of Mohamed Haneef's links to UK terror suspects were revealed in documents used by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to revoke the Indian doctor's visa, released by Haneef's lawyers.

Fairfax reported that Haneef's contact with Sabeel Ahmed was about the birth of his first child.

Ahmed's mother visited Haneef's wife after the birth in Bangalore, India, and passed on the good news, Fairfax newspapers report.

---

Alleged would-be bomber for trial

http://www.smh.com.au/news/breaking-news/alleged-wouldbe-bomber-for-trial/2007/07/18/1184559863047.html

A former Brisbane school teacher who allegedly planned to bomb his ex-girlfriend's mother's workplace has likened his case to that of terror suspect Mohamed Haneef.

On the final day of his committal hearing, John Howard Amundsen, 41, told the Brisbane Magistrates Court on Wednesday that the case against him was "ridiculous" and a "farce", and that he had been given less rights than Haneef.

Quote:

Haneef's SIM not in Jeep: report July 20, 2007 - 9:30AM http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/haneefs-sim-not-in-jeep-report/2007/07/20/1184559994520.html Some of the details of a terrorism charge against Mohamed Haneef presented in court by the prosecution may have been incorrect, reports say. A Brisbane court was told this week a mobile phone SIM card belonging to Haneef, a Gold Coast based doctor, was found in the Jeep that smashed into Glasgow Airport on June 30. Haneef has been charged with "recklessly" supporting a terrorist organisation, after providing the SIM card to a relative later allegedly involved in plotting the botched car bomb attacks in the UK. However, sources in the UK and Australia have told ABC Radio the SIM card was actually seized by police eight hours later when Haneef's cousin Sabeel Ahmed was arrested in Liverpool. Ahmed allegedly had two phones on him at the time of his arrest, one of which contained Haneef's SIM card. Police in Britain and Australia would not comment on where the SIM card was seized. If the latest report is verified officially, it would mean Haneef's SIM card was found with a man charged only with withholding information. This would dissolve Haneef's link to the Glasgow attack. Haneef remains in custody at Wolston Correctional Centre in Brisbane's south-west after failing to post $10,000 bail. If he had paid the surety, he would have been detained at Villawood immigration detention centre in Sydney, because the government has cancelled his temporary skills visa.

Kevin Andrews must be feeling pretty stupid right now.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22102699-601,00.html

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police investigating terror suspect Mohamed Haneef made claims in a court affidavit that appear to be inconsistent with an official police record of interview.

Analysis by The Australian yesterday of the police affidavit, which is before the courts, and the 142-page record of Dr Haneef's first police interview, show there are major discrepancies on two significant issues.

The affidavit states that Dr Haneef told police in his first interview that he lived in Britain with two terrorism suspects, his second cousins, both of whom have been charged by British police over the foiled bombings in London and Glasgow.

Information in the affidavit, which became part of the formal record for the Brisbane Magistrates Court in Dr Haneef's successful bail application, was considered by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews, but Mr Andrews did not have access to the police record of interview.

A few hours after Dr Haneef was granted bail on Monday, Mr Andrews cancelled the Indian-born medical practitioner's visa and ordered his continuing detention.

The police affidavit states: "On 2 July and 3 July 2007 Dr Haneef participated in a taped record of interview with the AFP and stated the following: Whilst in the UK he resided with suspects 1 and 2 (alleged suicide bomber Kafeel Ahmed and his brother Dr Sabeel Ahmed), at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool."

However, in the record of interview, obtained by The Australian on Tuesday, Dr Haneef tells police that he lived at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, with several doctors, whom he names. None are the two suspects. Dr Haneef tells police he visited Cambridge on two occasions in 2004 and stayed for up to six days with Kafeel Ahmed.

Dr Haneef also states that he had moved out of 13 Bentley Road when Dr Sabeel Ahmed subsequently stayed there.

"I don't know exactly how long did he live there for, because I wasn't staying there then," Dr Haneef says.

In subsequent Immigration Department documents used to advise Mr Andrews, senior public servant Peter White asserts: "Dr Haneef advised the AFP that he resided with Dr Sabeel Ahmed at a boarding house located at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, UK."

The police affidavit asserts that Dr Haneef, 27, a Gold Coast Hospital registrar since September last year, "had no explanation as to why he did not have a return ticket" from India to Australia. Dr Haneef, whose wife, Firdous Arshiya, gave birth to their first child by emergency caesarean section on June 26 in Bangalore, India, was trying to leave Australia on July 2 on a one-way ticket bought the same day by his father-in-law in India.

While the police affidavit stated Dr Haneef "had no explanation" about his one-way ticket, the record of interview shows that he gave a detailed explanation to police while answering questions. Dr Haneef told police that as he did not have funds in his Australian bank account his father-in-law had booked and paid for the one-way ticket with an understanding that "when I go there we can arrange for the coming back ticket. Because I just got 7 days' leave approved".

Dr Haneef's barrister, Stephen Keim SC, was widely backed by leading lawyers yesterday, amid fierce condemnation of Attorney-General Philip Ruddock.

Queensland Council for Civil Liberties vice-president Peter Applegarth SC branded Mr Ruddock a liar, while a string of lawyers were scathing about Mr Ruddock's handling of the case.

more details in this article - apparently even the interview record is dodgy, containing paraphrases of Haneef's statements rather than direct quotes:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22100471-5013479,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5571500,00.jpg

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5573186,00.jpg

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,5567215,00.jpg

I can't seem to find todays cartoon online. It's a classic - Haneef in a dingy interview room, asking politely for a glass of water, with the police writing down: "Subject clearly threatens to throw child into ocean...."

Kevin Andrews must be feeling pretty vindicated right now.


"Haneef focus switches to photosArticle from: Font size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print Paula Doneman
July 22, 2007 12:00am

POLICE are investigating whether detained doctor Mohamed Haneef was part of a planned terrorist attack on a landmark building at the Gold Coast.

Australian Federal Police are examining images of the building and its foundations found among documents and photographs seized in a police raid on the doctor's Southport unit three weeks ago.

The AFP inquiry is looking at documents referring to destroying structures discovered in the raid, law enforcement sources said"

http://www.news.com.au/sundaymail/story/0,23739,22111034-952,00.html

So the police found documents three weeks ago referring to blowing up buildings, and photos of those buildings, and they only realise this now, after the suspect was granted bail? The AFP is coming across as a bunch of clowns. Either they are making more stuff up, or they are incompetent.

Kevin Andrews must think he is playing 007 or something. He claimed in the weekend Australian that the AFP gave him, a politician, information that for some reason they were unwilling to trust with a magistrate.

I agree Freediver.  It just doesn't make sense.  If they suspected he was going to blow up a building they wouldn't have allowed him to go through a Magistrates' Court on the "sim card" charge - that would have been used to help build a larger and more serious charge.  He would have had his visa withdrawn immediately until a proper case had been prepared.

now this is just disgraceful, the police wrote the names of overseas terrorists into Haneef's personal diary and then interrogated him about having those names in his diary.

why did the police resort to such tactics? do they not have any evidence against Haneef and decided to manufacture some? or was it just an innocent mistake by the police?



Quote:

Another police blunder in Haneef case Monday Jul 23 08:29 AEST http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=280072 Another police blunder has emerged in the investigation of charged terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef. The Australian newspaper has revealed Australian Federal Police (AFP) officers wrote the names of overseas terrorism suspects in Haneef's personal diary. They later grilled him during an interrogation over whether he had written the potentially incriminating notes. A record of the interview between AFP investigators and Haneef reveals the details, The Australian reported. "In your diary you had handwritten notes. Is this your writing," AFP detective sergeant Adam Simms had asked Haneef. Haneef responded with "No. This is definitely not my writing. Definitely not." The interview record shows Haneef denied the writing was his in subsequent questions before police realised what had happened. Mr Simms was reported to have left the room and then returned with an explanation. "Thought that might have been the case," Mr Simms told Haneef. "In fact it's not (Haneef's handwriting). This is what's been writing by police. So it's not your handwriting at all." Haneef, 27, who was working as a registrar at the Gold Coast Hospital, has been charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation following the failed bomb attacks in Britain last month. Haneef was arrested by the AFP on July 2 at Brisbane Airport while trying to leave on a one-way ticket to India. Meanwhile, Queensland Premier Peter Beattie says the bungled investigation into Mohamed Haneef is undermining Australia's anti-terror laws. Mr Beattie says the AFP needs to be frank with the public. "My only concern with all of this is to ensure that this is properly and adequately explained to the Australian people," Mr Beattie told ABC Radio. "There are a number of inconsistencies. I was very annoyed yesterday to read a report ... that suggested there may have been some possible photographs taken of a building on the Gold Coast, bearing in mind that I'd been telling Queenslanders that I was not aware, on the advice I was given, that there was any threat to any individual or property. "These sort of leaks ... to me are just crazy and unacceptable in a climate where everyone is working to defeat terrorism." "The level of cynicism which is developing here is going to continue, and then that undermines public confidence in the anti-terrorism laws." AFP commissioner Mick Keelty on Sunday issued a statement saying there was no link between Haneef and a threat to the Gold Coast. But Mr Beattie said he still had concerns about the handling of the case. "What worries me is we've had material sort of selectively leaked, there's been a number of inconsistencies. I just think what we need to have is more discipline in this matter and full explanations. Mr Beattie's criticism is in contrast to federal Labor's support for the AFP. "That's a matter for them," Mr Beattie said of his federal counterparts' stance. "Clearly they have wanted to play a constructive role in this and I'm trying to do the same thing. "I work for Queensland - I'm not too worried about party political politics."

That's disgraceful. The AFP are turning us into the laughing stock of the international village.

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

Is this giving support to those that give support to terrorists ??   ;)


"Haneef cousin to visit todayArticle from: AAPFont size: Decrease Increase Email article: Email Print article: Print July 24, 2007 08:56am

A RELATIVE of terror suspect Mohamed Haneef will visit him at a prison in Brisbane's west today.

Imran Siddiqui, who is a cousin of Haneef's wife, says he will bring his family's good wishes and tell Dr Haneef his wife and child in India are well. "

I heard something on the radio yesterday about the AFP 'hosing down' claims that Haneef had documents about destroying buildings.

---

But wait, there's more! This shows that the government did in fact intend to undermine the authority of the magistrate to grant bail.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22123827-601,00.html

TWO Howard Government ministers were last night at odds over Canberra's reasons for revoking the visa of terror suspect Mohamed Haneef.

Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile yesterday claimed the Government withdrew the visa to prevent Dr Haneef from leaving the country, contradicting Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews's announcement last week that he had revoked the visa because the suspect had failed a character test.

Quote:

Deputy Prime Minister Mark Vaile yesterday claimed the Government withdrew the visa to prevent Dr Haneef from leaving the country, contradicting Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews's announcement last week that he had revoked the visa because the suspect had failed a character test.

Why is this not surprising!

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneef-investigator-drops-dead-Keelty/2007/07/26/1185339120072.html

An investigator in the case against Mohamed Haneef dropped dead while on duty, it was revealed on Thursday, amid predictions the terrorism-related charge against the Indian national is close to being dropped.

Australian Federal Police (AFP) commissioner Mick Keelty said the man died at work last week, on the same day Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews cancelled Haneef's visa.

The 45-year-old had died of natural causes.

The shock revelation came after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Damian Bugg QC, announced a review of all material related to the case against Haneef.

---

Haneef lawyer backs out of rally

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneef-lawyer-backs-out-of-rally/2007/07/27/1185339196325.html

The lawyer for accused terror suspect Mohamed Haneef has backed out of a rally organised by an extremist Islamic group with alleged links to the British car-bomb terror suspects.

Peter Russo and Haneef's visiting relative Imran Siddiqui were named as speakers at the Sydney rally organised by Hizb ut-Tahrir for Sunday.

But after Mr Russo was tipped off about the involvement of the extremist group he decided against attending.

It is a sad situation.
We should wait til he blows up a builing at least til we charge him, or just say" we are very sorry but we will not risk our citizens, here is a job in New Zealand, catch ya" :D

okay, so what now? does he just go back to his normal life?


Quote:

Haneef terror charge dropped July 27, 2007 03:12pm http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22143921-5001021,00.html The Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) has dropped the terror charge against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef. Commonwealth prosecutors withdrew the charge of supporting a terrorist organisation in Brisbane Magistrates Court this afternoon, following a review of the case by DPP Damian Bugg.

Sounds good to me. Let him go back to his chosen profession of saving lives. Obviously he will be on the law enforcement radar, so even if he was planning on getting involved in something, no other terrorists would go near him now.

One thing I would like to know is what this was all about:

The AFP inquiry is looking at documents referring to destroying structures discovered in the raid

Another lie from the police? Or just a little exageration?

yep, the legal system has found he has no case to answer.

free to go, sounds fair to me

Is he free though?   He will never get a job in Australia again - and what about India.  It's possible there will be prejudice there as well.

I feel very sorry for him - he will have this hanging over him like a shadow for years.

A job !!!!!!!!!
He'll never have to work again. Lucky guy.
He'll be on 60 minutes within a month, probably run as a pollie for rudd by the election.

Work ???

I think the Indians were fairly sympathetic to him. They could tell it was BS from the beginning. It must be easier to spot in a foreign government, without the partisan issues. I doubt a hospital would refuse him a job now either, with all the media attention they would get.

---

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22147243-601,00.html

THE Australian Federal Police is privately furious with Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews for his mishandling of the Mohamed Haneef case.

The Weekend Australian has learned that AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty and senior AFP management believe the decision by Mr Andrews last week to revoke Dr Haneef's visa both complicated and inflamed the now-collapsed case.

Shattering of trust hard to undo

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

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 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 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.

His hospital reportedly announced they supported him earlier on before charges were dropped anyway. I dont think he ever lost his job.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Court-may-prevent-Haneef-info-Russo/2007/07/30/1185647778256.html

Mohamed Haneef's lawyer believes court rules may prevent Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews releasing the information he says convinced him to cancel the Indian doctor's visa.

The Gold Coast Hospital registrar has flown home to India after a charge of supporting a terrorist organisation was dropped due to a lack of evidence.

Despite the collapse of the case, Mr Andrews has vowed not to reinstate Dr Haneef's visa unless the Indian national's lawyers are successful in appealing the decision in the Federal Court next month.

Mr Andrews now wants to reveal secret advice which he says convinced him to cancel Dr Haneef's visa on character grounds.

---

Glory hunting blamed for Haneef arrest

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Glory-hunting-blamed-for-Haneef-arrest/2007/07/31/1185647860194.html

Glory hunting was the driving force behind Britain's Scotland Yard providing incorrect information leading to the arrest of Mohamed Haneef on terrorism charges, a former senior British detective says.

But Australian police should have spent more time corroborating that information before acting, former commander of Scotland Yard's Flying Squad John O'Connor said.

---

Keelty blunders again on Haneef

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22175066-601,00.html

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty yesterday added another gaffe to the mistake-strewn case against Mohamed Haneef, confusing the location of the terror suspect's mobile phone SIM card.

Just days after the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions dropped the case against Dr Haneef after admitting errors in its evidence relating to the SIM card, Mr Keelty was yesterday forced to retract claims made earlier in the day that the card was found in the vicinity of the failed bomb attacks in London and Glasgow in late June.

The card, which prosecutors told the court was found in the burning Jeep that crashed into Glasgow airport, was actually found 300km away in the English city of Liverpool with Dr Haneef's second-cousin Sabeel Ahmed. Mr Keelty yesterday argued that the fact the card was not in the explosive-laden jeep did not diminish its importance.

Mr Keelty's blunder came as it emerged that a conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother, relied upon by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews to deport Dr Haneef, had been conducted in Urdu and translated into English.

Mr Andrews yesterday conceded the conversation was not in English, but rejected calls for the original-language version to be released for independent scrutiny and translation.

Dr Haneef, speaking in Bangalore last night, agreed that the transcript as released by Mr Andrews had been taken out of context. "Once you get the (full transcript of) the whole chat, you will understand it," he said.

---

Rudd repeats calls for Haneef inquiry

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Rudd-repeats-calls-for-Haneef-inquiry/2007/08/05/1186252520581.html

Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd has repeated calls for an inquiry into the Mohamed Haneef case.

"If the government will not act on this, then we believe an appropriate inquiry in the future would be necessary."

---

An interesting editorial on the back page of the Australian, claiming (fairly I think) that Kevin Andrews was within his rights and did the right thing by revoking Haneef's visa, but stepped over the line in demanding he be put behind bars after being released on bail.

Summing up Haneef

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22185201-16382,00.html

While many people are keen to assume the worst about Dr Haneef, others pillory Mr Andrews for the wrong reasons. Critics have used the absence of evidence that will stand up in court as a reason to condemn him for detaining Dr Haneef under the Migration Act after a magistrate released him on bail. This confuses and conflates the operation of anti-terror laws and the Migration Act. Mr Andrews had enough evidence linking Dr Haneef to the terror attacks to assume that he did not meet the good character requirements of the immigration laws. As such, whatever the morality of the matter or whatever political advantage he might have hoped to acquire, Mr Andrews acted as the law required. However, while he was obliged by the Migration Act to intervene when Dr Haneef was released on bail by a magistrate, immediately detaining him was a harsh outcome. It is difficult to imagine what harm Mr Andrews thought could have occurred if Dr Haneef were released without his passport and under close and constant surveillance. In this case, surely sundering the shackles that bind the Migration Act to the terror laws would not have put us all at risk, if Dr Haneef was ever a threat at all.

This won't really make a difference, but for a bit of fun it sends an email to the guy.

http://andrewsmustresign.com

well duh...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22193844-2,00.html

MOHAMED Haneef has told of a secondary reason for trying to leave Australia on July 2, other than wanting to see his wife and newborn daughter: his relatives were gravely worried he would be wrongfully linked to his second-cousins and the failed terror attacks in Britain days earlier, and they believed he could deal with it in India.

And he said the AFP had evidence showing that his leave from the Gold Coast Hospital was already approved by a senior administrator, and his air ticket booked and purchased, before he and his brother Shoaib had an internet chat conducted in Urdu.

He said police who questioned him about the conversation knew the context because they had his taped answers.

In a weekend interview with The Australian, Dr Haneef denounced terrorism and condemned the attempted bombings by his now-deceased second-cousin Kafeel Ahmed, with whom he said he had had little contact.

"This is terrible, these things should not happen," Dr Haneef said.

"But my main reason (for leaving) was my baby. The main reason was to be with my wife and my newly born child. If (the Gold Coast Hospital) had told me there was no cover (for his shift), I would not have gone. I would not have been trying to come to India at all. I was not absconding or anything. By this time, I had my leave approved."

He said he wanted to answer any questions that British police might have had when he tried to contact an officer, Ken Webster, four times by telephone on the afternoon of July 2, about eight hours before his flight was due to depart from Brisbane.

Dr Haneef's attempts to call the officer were corroborated by the questioning AFP officers, who had the 27-year-old's phone records, during his first interview on July 3, a transcript of which was provided to The Australian.

It remains unclear whether the AFP told Mr Andrews of the calls and Dr Haneef's explanations before the cancellation of the doctor's visa on July 16, triggering a Federal Court action to be heard on Wednesday.

Mr Andrews yesterday repeatedly refused to reveal whether he knew Dr Haneef had tried to contact British police when he cancelled the doctor's visa on character grounds.

Asked whether it was unusual for somebody accused of a link with terrorists to try to contact police, Mr Andrews told the ABC's Insiders program: "We don't know the full details about that contact and how that occurred or whether it occurred."

Mr Russo was quoted in an Indian newspaper as dismissing AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty's claim that Dr Haneef's case could take years to investigate. "If it takes him years to sort out Mohamed, I don't know what he's doing for the rest of his career," Mr Russo said.

---

AFP secrecy plea over Haneef interview

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22258777-601,00.html

AUSTRALIAN Federal Police, who were severely embarrassed by the leak of the first record of interview with terror suspect Mohamed Haneef, have issued a plea to his lawyers to keep the second interview secret.

Dr Haneef's solicitor, Peter Russo, said yesterday he suspected the plea was an attempt to save the AFP and Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews further embarrassment and scrutiny over "misleading and selective" attempts to smear the Indian-trained medical practitioner.

The AFP's counter-terrorism manager wrote to Mr Russo expressing concern "that some of the information revealed to your client during this interview could, if disclosed publicly, have the potential to prejudice ongoing and future police operations and/or give rise to a claim that a defendant cannot have a fair trial".

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22280943-601,00.html

ACCUSED terrorist Mohamed Haneef has won his bid to return to Australia and work following a Federal Court judgment today.

Dr Haneef  was successful in his appeal to the Federal Court in Brisbane to have his work visa reinstated.

Justice Spender made orders quashing Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews decision to cancel the former terrorism suspect's work visa on character grounds.

He also issued an injunction restraining Mr Andrews from acting upon the cancellation of the visa, and ordered he pay Dr Haneef's costs.

Justice Spender said that contrary to some media commentary which he described as "scandalous", the case wasn't a contest between the judiciary and the Howard Government.

He described remarks making claims of tension between judges and the Federal Government as "ignorant and grossly misinformed".

Justice Spender said Mr Andrews fell into jurisdictional error by applying the wrong test when determining whether to cancel the visa.

It followed that Mr Andrews decision must be set aside, he said.

Council for Mr Andrews then sought a 21-day stay of the order, and after heaing submissions from Dr Haneef's barrister Stephen Keim,  Justice Spender ordered a 21-day stay.

They are making a big mistake! :-/

I think  justice spender is the one making a judicial error.

judges are like that, use big words to try to say someone else is wrong.
Mr Andrews is entirely correct.

Kevin Andrews is still playing the 'I know something you don't know' card.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-to-appeal-against-Haneef-ruling/2007/08/21/1187462231566.html

But the former terror suspect's return to Queensland's Gold Coast is not guaranteed, after Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said he would appeal against Tuesday's decision, which hinged on a point of law.

Justice Spender told the court the term "association" should not include mere social, family or professional relationships.

He said there needed to be an "alliance" between the visa holder and a person accused of criminal activity to justify a cancellation.

Justice Spender said Mr Andrews had justifiable reasons to cancel Dr Haneef's visa, but had failed to use them.

These reasons included the fact Dr Haneef was a person of interest to UK authorities investigating failed bomb plots and that he had been charged on July 14 with providing support to a terrorist organisation.

Mr Andrews may not be able to use those grounds to again cancel Dr Haneef's visa because the charge against him was dropped late last month.

Mr Andrews said he had a greater level of suspicion about Dr Haneef now than when he made his original decision to cancel the doctor's visa.

"Further information has been provided to me after I made the original decision and that further information actually highlighted my suspicion in relation to Dr Haneef," Mr Andrews said.

Asked if he could cancel Dr Haneef's visa again if he was allowed to return to Australia, Mr Andrews replied: "Yes, it is possible".

Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, who was critical of the minister's original decision, called in state parliament for Mr Andrews to resign, labelling him an "international embarrassment".

A Queensland Health spokeswoman said Dr Haneef would be accepted back at the Gold Coast Hospital, provided he had a visa and appropriate registration.

Labor immigration spokesman Tony Burke called for a judicial inquiry.

"This has been the next stage in a long running saga of the government's handling of this matter," Mr Burke said.

"We need, at the end of it, to preserve public confidence through our immigration and anti-terror laws and the way to do that is by making sure we do have an independent judicial inquiry."

So the judge thinks he has the "right" definition of association ?
Another judge had the same definition as Mr Andrews

Did haneef communicate with terrorists ?
Did he act VERY suspiciously immediately after an atttack and a phonecall ?

i think Mohammed Haneef shouldn't come back, since he will still be seen as a terrorist in some people's eyes (even though he was cleared of all charges).

if he stayed over in India, it would be our loss, since we already have a shortage of doctors in the crippling health system.

He probably won't WANT to come back.
In his shoes I wouldn't.

hhhmmm, mind you, he did get $100,000 or so from some TV. Prob could do the same again if he comes back.
I reconsider !!!!!!!!!! :)

Another judge had the same definition as Mr Andrews

Where did you here that sprint?

On the radio, another previous case a high court judge (I think) agreed with the interperetation My Andrews used in this case.

I have no names you can reference, sorry

Was that recent - ie after this judge rejected the cancellation? Was he specifically disagreeing with this judgement or was it a general statement in support of the cancellation?

from what I understood the judgment was made last year on another case.
It had nothing to do with the haneef case

the radio interview was with Mr Andrews asking his response to the rejecting the cancelling of haneefs visa.
Mr Andrews pointed to this previous ruling made by another judge.

In that case it is highly unlikely to be relevant, and even if it was, Mr Andrews is not the one to be interpretting common law.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Lawyers-release-second-Haneef-transcript/2007/08/22/1187462331847.html

Lawyers for Dr Mohamed Haneef say they have released a transcript of a second police interview with the former terror suspect to counter "slander" by federal authorities.

Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews used selected quotes from the transcript at a July 31 media conference to justify his decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa - a decision quashed by the Federal Court on Tuesday, but which will go to appeal.

The Australian Federal Police (AFP) had not wanted the interview transcript released in full, but Mr Russo said Dr Haneef had asked his legal team to make it available.

"He wants all of the matters raised with him by federal police and his answers to those questions put into the public arena, because of the continuing attempts being made to slander his name by innuendo and selective release of information by government and federal spokespeople," Mr Russo said.

Andrews has really gone too far.  In one breath the Government wants to sell uranium to India and in the next breath is blatantly rejecting one of their citizens.

He's handled this badly from the word go and I hope some people find this another good reason not to vote the Liberals back in again.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Govt-lodges-appeal-against-Haneef-ruling/2007/09/05/1188783310396.html

The federal government is appealing a decision to set aside the cancellation of Indian doctor and cleared terror suspect Mohamed Haneef's visa.

On August 21, Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews said he would go to the High Court if necessary after Federal Court Judge Jeffrey Spender ordered Dr Haneef's work visa be returned.

Justice Spender said then that parliament could not have intended to enact a law that allowed a minister to oust a person for having an innocent association with someone suspected of criminal conduct.

But Mr Andrews said he believed the judge was wrong and the government would appeal to the full bench of the Federal Court.

The order was stayed for 21 days.

---

New complaint over Haneef documents leak

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/New-complaint-over-Haneef-documents-leak/2007/09/17/1189881416754.html

The lawyer for Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef says he's willing to be held accountable for leaking his client's police transcript to the media, following another complaint to legal authorities.

Barrister Stephen Keim SC attracted acclaim from the legal fraternity when he leaked the 142-page transcript to The Australian newspaper in July after his client was charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation.

In the interview, Dr Haneef rejected several of the claims relied on by prosecutors, including that he lived with UK terror suspects Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.

Within a fortnight, the charges against Dr Haneef had collapsed after Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg reviewed the case and found there was no prospect of a conviction.

Mr Keim is currently on two weeks holiday and said he would use the time to prepare his response to the Queensland Bar Association - the body responsible for investigating the complaints.

"I have no concerns about being called to account for my actions - ultimately we are all accountable for what we do," he said.

---

Secret Haneef plan exposed

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22688973-5006786,00.html

CONFIDENTIAL emails between top AFP agents and a senior public servant advising Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews indicate that there was a secret plan to thwart a decision bya magistrate to release then terror suspect Mohamed Haneef on bail.

The emails show the AFP was aware of a weekend "contingency" plan to ensure the Indian doctor would remain behind bars by having Mr Andrews revoke his visa under the Migration Act in the event of bail being granted by Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne on the following Monday.

The disclosure of the emails will be used against Mr Andrews, who has always insisted that he made his decision to revoke Dr Haneef's visa under the Migration Act and that it was "unrelated to the question of proceedings in the criminal court in Brisbane".

A spokeswoman for Mr Andrews told The Australian last night that she was "shocked and a bit concerned" at the disclosure in the emails.

"That's something, to be honest, I'm a bit lost for words on because it shocks me," said Kate Walshe, adding that she would seek urgent advice from Mr Andrews.

---

Haneef inquiry to go ahead: Rudd

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Haneef-inquiry-to-go-ahead-Rudd/2007/12/06/1196812904358.html

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

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

http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-free-to-return-to-australia/20071221-1icz.html

Former terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef is free to return to Australia after victory in a legal battle to have his visa reinstated.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the Indian national was entitled to return to work after the full bench of the Federal Court upheld a judge's earlier decision to reinstate his visa.

Jubilant lawyer Peter Russo says he will now fly to India, if necessary, to convince Dr Haneef's family that the former terrorism suspect should resume his medical career in Australia.

Mr Russo said Dr Haneef's wife Firdous had some concerns about allowing her husband to return, following his treatment at the hands of Australian authorities.

freediver wrote on Dec 21^st, 2007 at 6:52pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-free-to-return-to-australia/20071221-1icz.html Former terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef is free to return to Australia after victory in a legal battle to have his visa reinstated. Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the Indian national was entitled to return to work after the full bench of the Federal Court upheld a judge's earlier decision to reinstate his visa. Jubilant lawyer Peter Russo says he will now fly to India, if necessary, to convince Dr Haneef's family that the former terrorism suspect should resume his medical career in Australia. Mr Russo said Dr Haneef's wife Firdous had some concerns about allowing her husband to return, following his treatment at the hands of Australian authorities.

Fantastic.  Perhaps he can share a bomb making facility with David Hicks.

Racism a factor in my arrest: Haneef

http://news.smh.com.au/racism-a-factor-in-my-arrest-haneef/20080121-1n4y.html

Former terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef says he believes he was targeted by Australian authorities for racial reasons.

The Indian doctor said he believed his race and religion had been a factor in the events that surrounded his arrest last year.

"It might be just because I am an Asian Muslim," Dr Haneef told ABC Radio.

the indian cricketers are good at claiming racism too.
Yet they were the ones calling out "monkey"


He was thrown out for his terrorist associations, not for colour or belief.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 11:17am:

Racism a factor in my arrest: Haneef http://news.smh.com.au/racism-a-factor-in-my-arrest-haneef/20080121-1n4y.html Former terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef says he believes he was targeted by Australian authorities for racial reasons. The Indian doctor said he believed his race and religion had been a factor in the events that surrounded his arrest last year. "It might be just because I am an Asian Muslim," Dr Haneef told ABC Radio.

His connections may have had quite a lot to do with it as well - but never mind that according to him.

I wonder if this boofhead thinks every person of his race and religion have been arrested.  I'll bet he knows otherwise but plays dumb anyway.

freediver wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 11:17am:

Racism a factor in my arrest: Haneef http://news.smh.com.au/racism-a-factor-in-my-arrest-haneef/20080121-1n4y.html Former terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef says he believes he was targeted by Australian authorities for racial reasons. The Indian doctor said he believed his race and religion had been a factor in the events that surrounded his arrest last year. "It might be just because I am an Asian Muslim," Dr Haneef told ABC Radio.

Bloody hell.  This guy has been declared innocent at three Australian levels.........

(a) A Judge of the Federal Court;
(b) The Federal Appeal Court;.,...and
(c) The Federal Government as a consequence of it's decision not to appeal to the High Court.

Give the guy a fair go, ferfuxsake.

Not one Court in this land opposes his return to Australia.

Not one Australian Authority has even got close to establishing that he is not a free bird to fly and land where he seeks, especially here.

The AFP buggered up.......hayseed looking for another 'Tampa,' IMHO.

Aussie wrote on Jan 21^st, 2008 at 9:31pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 21st, 2008 at 11:17am: Racism a factor in my arrest: Haneef http://news.smh.com.au/racism-a-factor-in-my-arrest-haneef/20080121-1n4y.html Former terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef says he believes he was targeted by Australian authorities for racial reasons. The Indian doctor said he believed his race and religion had been a factor in the events that surrounded his arrest last year. "It might be just because I am an Asian Muslim," Dr Haneef told ABC Radio. Bloody hell.  This guy has been declared innocent at three Australian levels......... (a) A Judge of the Federal Court; (b) The Federal Appeal Court;.,...and (c) The Federal Government as a consequence of it's decision not to appeal to the High Court. Give the guy a fair go, ferfuxsake. Not one Court in this land opposes his return to Australia. Not one Australian Authority has even got close to establishing that he is not a free bird to fly and land where he seeks, especially here. The AFP buggered up.......hayseed looking for another 'Tampa,' IMHO.

Huh?  Johnny arrested the boof?

I expect you are confused.

http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-slams-former-terror-suspect-tag/20080122-1ng4.html

Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef says he is tired of being referred to as a "former terror suspect" and has appealed to the Australian media to stop using the description.

In an interview with The Bulletin magazine to be published Wednesday, Dr Haneef says the label is continuing to muddy his name and professional standing, six months after a charge of providing support to terrorism was dropped.

"This label makes me feel bad. It's not true - I had nothing to do with terror," Dr Haneef told the magazine.

"While I should be grateful to the Australian media for their incessant support, it's up to the media to get back with the normalcy of deleting these things whenever they refer to me and this topic."

[In response to DT ^^^^^^]


Where did I say that your God, hayseed, arrested the guy?

And why, you creep, would you refer to this innocent man as a 'boof?'

freediver wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 7:51pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-slams-former-terror-suspect-tag/20080122-1ng4.html Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef says he is tired of being referred to as a "former terror suspect" and has appealed to the Australian media to stop using the description. In an interview with The Bulletin magazine to be published Wednesday, Dr Haneef says the label is continuing to muddy his name and professional standing, six months after a charge of providing support to terrorism was dropped. "This label makes me feel bad. It's not true - I had nothing to do with terror," Dr Haneef told the magazine. "While I should be grateful to the Australian media for their incessant support, it's up to the media to get back with the normalcy of deleting these things whenever they refer to me and this topic."

I agree 100%.

The media just love, lazily.....and commercially driven....... to use these tags.....one of the favourites is 'formerly disgraced Joe Blow......' and in doing so, they completely ignore the subject's current cleared innocent status!

And you, DT, are doing exactly the same.

Aussie wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 8:09pm:

[In response to DT ^^^^^^] Where did I say that your God, hayseed, arrested the guy? And why, you creep, would you refer to this innocent man as a 'boof?'

You implied Johnny had something to do with it dude.  You reckoned he was seeking some publicity or something but you may not be aware of the separation of powers doctrine.

I think he's a boof.  That's why I call him one.  I reckon he is full of nutsack craptacular myself.

Aussie wrote on Jan 22^nd, 2008 at 8:18pm:

freediver wrote on Jan 22nd, 2008 at 7:51pm: http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-slams-former-terror-suspect-tag/20080122-1ng4.html Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef says he is tired of being referred to as a "former terror suspect" and has appealed to the Australian media to stop using the description. In an interview with The Bulletin magazine to be published Wednesday, Dr Haneef says the label is continuing to muddy his name and professional standing, six months after a charge of providing support to terrorism was dropped. "This label makes me feel bad. It's not true - I had nothing to do with terror," Dr Haneef told the magazine. "While I should be grateful to the Australian media for their incessant support, it's up to the media to get back with the normalcy of deleting these things whenever they refer to me and this topic." I agree 100%. The media just love, lazily.....and commercially driven....... to use these tags.....one of the favourites is 'formerly disgraced Joe Blow......' and in doing so, they completely ignore the subject's current cleared innocent status! And you, DT, are doing exactly the same.

That's exactly what he is - a former terror suspect - why would they not state truth?   Or do you prefer a hamstrung media?  I guess being a lefty you do.

The honest, and real time truth demands he would be referred to as the person wrongly accused of being an associate of terrorists.

aussie - he was associated with terrorists.
one judge feels not strongly enough

http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-lawyer-cleared-of-misconduct/20080201-1pic.html

The lawyer for former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef has escaped punishment for leaking a transcript of his client's police interview to the media.

Barrister Stephen Keim attracted praise from the legal fraternity but harsh criticism from the Howard government and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for releasing the 142-page transcript to The Australian newspaper in July.

The document was released just days after Dr Haneef, who was working at the Gold Coast Hospital, was charged with supporting a terrorist organisation.

Within a fortnight of its publication the charge was dropped, amid intense media scrutiny.

In the interview, Dr Haneef rejected several of the claims relied on by prosecutors, including that he lived with UK terror suspects Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.

freediver wrote on Feb 1^st, 2008 at 7:33pm:

http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-lawyer-cleared-of-misconduct/20080201-1pic.html The lawyer for former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef has escaped punishment for leaking a transcript of his client's police interview to the media. Barrister Stephen Keim attracted praise from the legal fraternity but harsh criticism from the Howard government and the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for releasing the 142-page transcript to The Australian newspaper in July. The document was released just days after Dr Haneef, who was working at the Gold Coast Hospital, was charged with supporting a terrorist organisation. Within a fortnight of its publication the charge was dropped, amid intense media scrutiny. In the interview, Dr Haneef rejected several of the claims relied on by prosecutors, including that he lived with UK terror suspects Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed.

You missed a bit


Quote:

However, LSC John Britton on Friday announced Mr Keim had been cleared of professional misconduct despite being found to have breached rule 60 of the Barristers Rule 2007 which prohibits the release of documents before trial.

When lawyers judge lawyers where is the justice?

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is a completely independant statutory body totally separate from the Queensland Law Society/Bar Association. It was established for precisely the reason of defusing allegations of the kind DT just made.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 10:25am:

The Legal Services Commission (LSC) is a completely independant statutory body totally separate from the Queensland Law Society/Bar Association. It was established for precisely the reason of defusing allegations of the kind DT just made.

Huh?  So . . . .


Quote:

despite being found to have breached rule 60 of the Barristers Rule 2007 which prohibits the release of documents before trial.

the playful  . . . . .



Quote:

Mr Keim had been cleared of professional misconduct

How is it so that he can be in breach of the rules yet has not conducted himself unprofessionally.  I do not believe you that "the Legal Services Commission (LSC) is a completely independant statutory body totally separate from the Queensland Law Society/Bar Association. It was established for precisely the reason of defusing allegations of the kind DT just made."


A completely independent body would have found that breaching the rules constitutes a breach of the rules.  I stand by what I said.

Are you still a law student??????  I think you are, but you have far to travel, it seems.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 12:55pm:

Are you still a law student??????  I think you are, but you have far to travel, it seems.

Are you suggesting I still have integrity then?  That once I undestand rules can be broken with impunity I will have arrived at the pinnacle of lawyerly insouciance?

I hope I never arrive at that awful place.

To break a Rule does not = professional misconduct.

Keim did Australia a great service.  He put the skids under the media spin being orchestrated by Keelty.

Keelty is now legless.

In fact, if the front page of today's The Australian is  any guide, Keelty is truly buggered.

As, in my opinion, he ought be.  He knowingly sent some young and stupid Australians to certain death, instead of saving them by arrest in Australia.

His lack of urgency in that case is matched only by his zeal and equal stupidity in his management of the Haneef matter.

He still allows suspicion to hover over Haneef.

My guess is that Rudd has sent someone to ask Keelty to put up on Haneef, and Mick has failed to produce the goods.

Hence, Rudd has allowed The Australian to hang him out to dry.

I have a minor reservation because Jana Wendt (who has personally interviewed him) has given the ABC a commentary on Keelty in which she reckons the man has real integrity.  

But, I just cannot see it in his deeds.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 9:34pm:

To break a Rule does not = professional misconduct. Keim did Australia a great service.  He put the skids under the media spin being orchestrated by Keelty. Keelty is now legless. In fact, if the front page of today's The Australian is  any guide, Keelty is truly buggered. As, in my opinion, he ought be.  He knowingly sent some young and stupid Australians to certain death, instead of saving them by arrest in Australia. His lack of urgency in that case is matched only by his zeal and equal stupidity in his management of the Haneef matter. He still allows suspicion to hover over Haneef. My guess is that Rudd has sent someone to ask Keelty to put up on Haneef, and Mick has failed to produce the goods. Hence, Rudd has allowed The Australian to hang him out to dry. I have a minor reservation because Jana Wendt (who has personally interviewed him) has given the ABC a commentary on Keelty in which she reckons the man has real integrity.   But, I just cannot see it in his deeds.

I wonder why they bother with rules then if breaking them is acceptable behaviour and not professional misconduct.

Odd, but I thought professional ethics were important.  Maybe that is just me though hey?

And if you are referring to the Bali 9 (I haven't read the paper) how could he arrest them here?  What had they done?

Revoked their capacity to travel.  

He has the power. Don't attempt to argue that point DT.  Keelty could have kept those stupid, young idiots in Australia, and saved them from death.  He chose not to...................he admits that.  Bad judgement call.

No, the breach of a Rule is not acceptable, but you stupid 'young' legal pup........................it does not automatically = professional misconduct.

One day, you will appreciate that.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 10:19pm:

Revoked their capacity to travel.   He has the power. Don't attempt to argue that point DT.  Keelty could have kept those stupid, young idiots in Australia, and saved them from death.  He chose not to...................he admits that.  Bad judgement call. No, the breach of a Rule is not acceptable, but you stupid 'young' legal pup........................it does not automatically = professional misconduct. One day, you will appreciate that.

I'm afraid I will never 'appreciate' that claim mate.  Rules are called that for a reason.  Call me old fashioned but I happen to believe in following the dictates of one's profession.  Even if you don't give a testicle for it.

How can the Fed Police Commissioner revoke a citizen's right to travel?  More rule breaking?

Just detain the stupid young idiots in Australia, as he knew their intent.  If he did that, the mule timing would have been buggered.

It is an offence in Australia to plan/conspire to commit an offence elsewhere.

I have to agree with you Aussie.  Some of these kids were sent to their death by the actions of Keelty.  The drug bosses, many of whom are "reputable" businessmen, as usual escape notice, while a group of dysfunctional kids pay the price.  We turn to the police for help and this is the result and a good lesson for some.  There won't be too many parents in the future calling on police assistance when it comes to preventing a crime.

Keelty was OK until the "war on terror" began when he misguidedly voiced his opposition to the Iraq War and was shut up quick smart.  Since then he's gone over the top in pleasing his masters and the Haneef case is a perfect example.  To some of us it was only a political stunt that went wrong, although the righteous right whingers like to believe any Muslim with an olive skin has to be a potential terrorist.

Aussie wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2008 at 10:30pm:

Just detain the stupid young idiots in Australia, as he knew their intent.  If he did that, the mule timing would have been buggered. It is an offence in Australia to plan/conspire to commit an offence elsewhere.

In a police state you may be right, but this is a world where people enjoy freedom of thought.  To think of a crime is not a crime, it is only a reason for the police to surveil.  Luckily (though it may not be far away given the new Liebor propensity to censor governmental agencies) we don't yet have thought police.

It is not an offence in Australia to commit a crime elsewhere.

mantra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 7:10am:

I have to agree with you Aussie.  Some of these kids were sent to their death by the actions of Keelty.  The drug bosses, many of whom are "reputable" businessmen, as usual escape notice, while a group of dysfunctional kids pay the price.  We turn to the police for help and this is the result and a good lesson for some.  There won't be too many parents in the future calling on police assistance when it comes to preventing a crime. Keelty was OK until the "war on terror" began when he misguidedly voiced his opposition to the Iraq War and was shut up quick smart.  Since then he's gone over the top in pleasing his masters and the Haneef case is a perfect example.  To some of us it was only a political stunt that went wrong, although the righteous right whingers like to believe any Muslim with an olive skin has to be a potential terrorist.

"sent to their death by the actions of Keelty"?

That is one hell of a claim generated entirely by emotion with no basis in fact.   Keelty did not commit a crime, he did not conspire to commit one, nor did he encourage or in any way insist that anyone do so, nor did he instigate or participate in the act.

Perhaps you can explain how he 'sent these kids to their death'?  I thought they were free agents in a free country who were responsible for their own actions.  At least that is how I see them.

The Australian federal police have a choice between arresting smugglers on their way out and punishing them under our judicial system, or letting them move on into a country with the death penalty. It is a conscious choice that must inevitable come from above, and which our leaders must be held responsible for.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 10:48am:

The Australian federal police have a choice between arresting smugglers on their way out and punishing them under our judicial system, or letting them move on into a country with the death penalty. It is a conscious choice that must inevitable come from above, and which our leaders must be held responsible for.

What, pray tell, would you charge an innocent Australian citizen with?

Quote:

What, pray tell, would you charge an innocent Australian citizen with

Prevention is better than cure.  Would it really have made such a big impact on the drug trade if a couple of detectives had spoken to the boy concerned and given him a warning?  Police used to do this sort of thing all the time.  Instead an Indonesian surveillance team was informed of the proposed activities and these kids were used as lure - for what reason, no-one knows.   They didn't catch Mr. Big, so maybe the AFP just wanted to get into the good books of the Indonesian police.  

mantra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 3:45pm:

Quote: What, pray tell, would you charge an innocent Australian citizen with Prevention is better than cure.  Would it really have made such a big impact on the drug trade if a couple of detectives had spoken to the boy concerned and given him a warning?  Police used to do this sort of thing all the time.  Instead an Indonesian surveillance team was informed of the proposed activities and these kids were used as lure - for what reason, no-one knows.   They didn't catch Mr. Big, so maybe the AFP just wanted to get into the good books of the Indonesian police.

I have absolutely no doubt the bleeding hearts would shriek themselves to sleep if the police collared men and women freely going about their business.  Oh that's right they already do that.  Picture Haneef - suspected terrorist and he was detained lawfully due to understandable suspicion - and listen to the breast beating and lamenting from you and others like you.

See the feds could never win with you - you have them goldurned hornswoggling for not acting or goddoomed for acting.  I, however, know they did their job with impeccable professionalism.  The consequences of drug smuggler's actions is the consequences of drug smuggler's actions.  It's their problem they are where they are.

Quote:

The consequences of drug smuggler's actions is the consequences of drug smuggler's actions.  It's their problem they are where they are.

This is true and I agree in principle, but the AFP and possibly the Indonesian Police would have had no idea these kids were smuggling drugs if one of the well meaning parents hadn't contacted the AFP prior to their trip to Bali to inform them of their son's movements.

There's a good lesson to be learnt here - parents butt out of your kid's affairs.

As far as Haneef goes - this was a farce.  The AFP had the necessary information within a few days, yet Haneef was imprisoned for 3 weeks and against a non-judgement by a Federal Court Judge, Minister Andrews made the decision to confiscate his visa.

Personally I don't care about the Bali 9, Corby or Haneef because  the Howard government had far more serious issues to explain to the country, than those finding themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Lucky for Howard - he got out in the nick of time.  But that's another subject.

Mantra I don't think the AFP should be tipping off terrorists. They should simply arrest them while they are on the way out with the drugs rather than cooperating with the police at the other end, where they will be subjected to a substandard level of justice and punishments that Australians will not tolerate. It's jsut a way of reintroducing the death penalty by stealth - helping other countries to execute our citizens rather than doing it ourselves. The AFP should only cooperate with other countries if they agree to take the death penalty off the table. The AFP betrayed the parents of these kids, who had a reasonable expectation that their kids would not end up in the Bangkok Hilton.

mantra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 5:32pm:

Quote: The consequences of drug smuggler's actions is the consequences of drug smuggler's actions.  It's their problem they are where they are. This is true and I agree in principle, but the AFP and possibly the Indonesian Police would have had no idea these kids were smuggling drugs if one of the well meaning parents hadn't contacted the AFP prior to their trip to Bali to inform them of their son's movements. There's a good lesson to be learnt here - parents butt out of your kid's affairs. As far as Haneef goes - this was a farce.  The AFP had the necessary information within a few days, yet Haneef was imprisoned for 3 weeks and against a non-judgement by a Federal Court Judge, Minister Andrews made the decision to confiscate his visa. Personally I don't care about the Bali 9, Corby or Haneef because  the Howard government had far more serious issues to explain to the country, than those finding themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time.   Lucky for Howard - he got out in the nick of time.  But that's another subject.

I strongly doubt the AFP had any information after three days which would have allowed Haneef to go free.  As far as I recollect it they were waiting on information from overseas to corroborate Haneef's story.  Once again the feds would not have been able to win with you - if they had let him go and he turned out to be a terrorist you would persecute them.    I believe in letting them do their job and they appear to have done it with impeccable professionalism - unlike the legal profession who break rules to the delight of people like Aussie.

If you don't care about the Bali 9 you seem to be happy to defame a perfectly good policeman for nothing at all then.  You claimed Keelty had sent the drug smugglers to their deaths - the drug smugglers did that, not Keelty.

Minister Andrews did his job - he revoked the visa of a suspected terrorism supporter.  Had he not, you, once again, would be shrieking with rage and hatred.  He did what his position required him to do.  He also supported the lawful authorities - the police.  Unlike the Liebor government who will hang the police out to dry if it makes them popular to do so.  They have no loyalty and they feel no obligation to support the public servants in their, at times, difficult investigations.

John Howard was forced from office by a foolish electorate who will regret their folly.  They will feel the pain of a Liebor government in time and will realise Johnny was always on their team.

freediver wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 7:11pm:

Mantra I don't think the AFP should be tipping off terrorists. They should simply arrest them while they are on the way out with the drugs rather than cooperating with the police at the other end, where they will be subjected to a substandard level of justice and punishments that Australians will not tolerate. It's jsut a way of reintroducing the death penalty by stealth - helping other countries to execute our citizens rather than doing it ourselves. The AFP should only cooperate with other countries if they agree to take the death penalty off the table. The AFP betrayed the parents of these kids, who had a reasonable expectation that their kids would not end up in the Bangkok Hilton.

They should arrest them before they have even smuggled any drugs?  How could they do that?

I don't know which provincial backwater you are from but policing is a global affair these days and the war on drugs extends across the globe.   Declining to share information with foreign police forces will ensure a similar secrecy in return and the war will be lost.  I think you should get up to date with the problem.

Quote:

Minister Andrews did his job -

Incompetently..............as has been determined by The Law.

Quote:

I strongly doubt the AFP had any information after three days which would have allowed Haneef to go free.  As far as I recollect it they were waiting on information from overseas to corroborate Haneef's story

Your recollection is flawed.  The Brits sent a female forensic guru over in the first two days of his detention.  She left without any attempt to extradite haneef to the UK.

We all know why now.

But, she knew then that the case against haneef was buggered.

Quote:

If you don't care about the Bali 9 you seem to be happy to defame a perfectly good policeman for nothing at all then.  You claimed Keelty had sent the drug smugglers to their deaths - the drug smugglers did that, not Keelty

Wrong. Keelty sat on his hands knowing that these idiots would be caught in a Country where they would hang.

He had ample power of detention/arrest to keep them here and stuff the whole thing up.

He chose to be God and he alone, ultimately within Australia, stands to answer for their deaths.

Quote:

It's just a way of reintroducing the death penalty by stealth - helping other countries to execute our citizens rather than doing it ourselves. The AFP should only cooperate with other countries if they agree to take the death penalty off the table. The AFP betrayed the parents of these kids, who had a reasonable expectation that their kids would not end up in the Bangkok Hilton.

That was well said and I agree Freediver.  The AFP should have arrested them while they were on the way out with the drugs rather than cooperating with the police at the other end.

As far as not caring Deepthought, these people aren't connected to me and there is nothing I can personally do to make their situation better.  Of course if it had been someone close to me, it would have been a different story.  

I am not defaming Keelty - he has done that himself.  When the Iraq war was announced he took a strong stance and was reprimanded by the government and since then he has sold his soul to the devil.  He is a weak man and not suitable to be Commissioner of the AFP.

The AFP received the information they needed in regard to the sim card two days after Haneef was arrested, but the AFP for whatever reason, chose to keep him incarcerated - maybe because it would win kudos from the great master himself.  There was no further evidence collected after that time - it was all show.

I am not defaming Keelty

Technically you are. The defense (both moral and legal) is that you were just bringing his reputation down to where it should be, and that he is a public figure who opens himself up to such criticism.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 7:42pm:

Quote: Minister Andrews did his job - Incompetently..............as has been determined by The Law.

Actually no, the presiding rule breaker determined that due to a technicality the visa should be reinstated.  Had the right test been applied the revocation would have been appropriate.  Alas Mr Andrews is not a judge with hours of time to ponder such matters and could not have predicted the way the rule breaker would have applied the particular legislation.  But then, lawyers argue points of law all the time.

Mr Andrews acted according to the information he had at the time.  His crystal ball was on the blink.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 7:47pm:

Quote: I strongly doubt the AFP had any information after three days which would have allowed Haneef to go free.  As far as I recollect it they were waiting on information from overseas to corroborate Haneef's story Your recollection is flawed.  The Brits sent a female forensic guru over in the first two days of his detention.  She left without any attempt to extradite haneef to the UK. We all know why now. But, she knew then that the case against haneef was buggered.

We all knew why then, that is those of us who can see the big picture clearly.  You still seem to labour under the illusion that a person committing a crime in one country also commits a crime in other countries simultaneously.  Giving someone a SIM card is not a crime - yet that is all Haneef appears to have done in the UK.  Why would the poms extradite him for a non-crime?

His detention here was as a terrorist suspect, his involvement yet to be determined - hence the detention for questioning.  It is quite common that suspects are detained.  I assure you there is nothing out of the ordinary in that.

Aussie wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 7:53pm:

Quote: If you don't care about the Bali 9 you seem to be happy to defame a perfectly good policeman for nothing at all then.  You claimed Keelty had sent the drug smugglers to their deaths - the drug smugglers did that, not Keelty Wrong. Keelty sat on his hands knowing that these idiots would be caught in a Country where they would hang. He had ample power of detention/arrest to keep them here and stuff the whole thing up. He chose to be God and he alone, ultimately within Australia, stands to answer for their deaths.

What would he arrest travellers for Aussie?  What would the charge be?  You keep blustering old bean.

mantra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 8:05pm:

Quote: It's just a way of reintroducing the death penalty by stealth - helping other countries to execute our citizens rather than doing it ourselves. The AFP should only cooperate with other countries if they agree to take the death penalty off the table. The AFP betrayed the parents of these kids, who had a reasonable expectation that their kids would not end up in the Bangkok Hilton. That was well said and I agree Freediver.  The AFP should have arrested them while they were on the way out with the drugs rather than cooperating with the police at the other end.

They didn't take any drugs out.   They were bringing drugs from Indonesia after they had already left Australia.   What would they be arrested for?   You all keep repeating it but no one is making sense.   They had committed no crime when they left the country.   How could they be charged?  Please will one of you explain this rather obvious contradiction?


mantra wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2008 at 8:05pm:

As far as not caring Deepthought, these people aren't connected to me and there is nothing I can personally do to make their situation better.  Of course if it had been someone close to me, it would have been a different story.   I am not defaming Keelty - he has done that himself.  When the Iraq war was announced he took a strong stance and was reprimanded by the government and since then he has sold his soul to the devil.  He is a weak man and not suitable to be Commissioner of the AFP. The AFP received the information they needed in regard to the sim card two days after Haneef was arrested, but the AFP for whatever reason, chose to keep him incarcerated - maybe because it would win kudos from the great master himself.  There was no further evidence collected after that time - it was all show.

Mr Keelty is not defaming himself.  You are.  By saying he has sent people off to be killed is defamatory.   Will you explain how he could have stopped them and how he incited them to go off and die please.   Don't keep alleging falsehoods about a well respected policeman.

There was a great deal of evidence about Haneef which came to light after the SIM card.  Don't you recall the chat room conversations and emails?  The phone calls?  Am I the only one who did not sleep through the entire investigation?

Quote:

They didn't take any drugs out.   They were bringing drugs from Indonesia after they had already left Australia.   What would they be arrested for?   You all keep repeating it but no one is making sense.   They had committed no crime when they left the country.   How could they be charged?  Please will one of you explain this rather obvious contradiction?

They certainly had, one of conspiracy to import drugs into Australia.  If I am wrong, what Keelty knew was certainly enough for him to order their arrest, and even if they were later released without charge, it would very likely have been enough to save them from themselves.

Quote:

Don't keep alleging falsehoods about a well respected policeman.

There is now a considerable and very dark cloud over his head, given his handling of the Bali 9 and especially haneef.  The conduct of the AFP (re: haneef) for which Keelty is responsible suggests an easy willingness for them to become the corrupt agent for implementing a failed attempt by politicians to put another 'Tampa' together just before an election.

Aussie wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 11:56am:

Quote: They didn't take any drugs out.   They were bringing drugs from Indonesia after they had already left Australia.   What would they be arrested for?   You all keep repeating it but no one is making sense.   They had committed no crime when they left the country.   How could they be charged?  Please will one of you explain this rather obvious contradiction? They certainly had, one of conspiracy to import drugs into Australia.  If I am wrong, what Keelty knew was certainly enough for him to order their arrest, and even if they were later released without charge, it would very likely have been enough to save them from themselves.

So on the one hand you are critical of Keelty arresting and releasing without charge a suspected terrorist and on the other hand you are critical of not arresting and releasing without charge some innocent Aussies who may import drugs at some future time.

Do I read your hypocrisy right?

Who was arrested and released without charge?

Also, it would not be unreasonable for the AFP to provide info to a foreign country on the condition that the Australians are arrested when they arrive here with the drugs.

Aussie wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 1:10pm:

Who was arrested and released without charge?

Haneef.

Can you explain your hypocritical position?

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 1:10pm:

Also, it would not be unreasonable for the AFP to provide info to a foreign country on the condition that the Australians are arrested when they arrive here with the drugs.

Yeah, good idea, but that is not what Keelty or the AFP did.  Knowing pretty precisely what these idiots were up to, a couple of days before they had left Australia, Keelty dobbed them in to Indonesian Authorites with no conditions attached whatsoever.  He presented them, contrary to Government Policy, to the tender mercies of the death penalty brigade, an a platter.  

The man KNEW he was allowing them to go to their deaths.

deepthought wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 1:40pm:

Aussie wrote on Feb 4th, 2008 at 1:10pm: Who was arrested and released without charge? Haneef. Can you explain your hypocritical position?

Of course I can answer your point, but my position involves no hypocrisy.  

(There is, by the way at least one very important distinction between the two cases.  One involved the death penalty and the positive steps taken by Keelty to send young idiot Australians to their graves, contrary to Government Policy, when he could have arrested and charged them with conspiracy to import, a charge which would obviously have stuck.)

Haneef was arrested and CHARGED, NOT RELEASED until after he was granted bail.  Within days of that arrest, and before Haneef was charged, Keelty knew the stuff about the sim card was crap.  Notwithstanding, he bluffed his way on, and charged, probably hoping something would turn up onto which he could hang his hat.  He kept on with the release of rubbish like, photos of buildings said to be likely targets, the Indian 'dossier', the innuendo about incriminating content in the Record of Interview....blown out of the water by Keim's courageous public release of those Records.....

Of course, their best laid plans were stuffed by a Magistrate who granted haneef bail on the terrorist charge.

He was held illegally in custody, by Howard's Government, after having his visa revoked.  Having done that revocation, Andrews ought to have immediately deported haneef.

Finally after Hearings concerning the original visa cancellation, Keellty drops the charges and thus lost the last vestige of credibility he may have had, after dobbing Australians in to a murderous Government, when he could have had them dealt with by the Australian Judicial System.

freediver wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 1:10pm:

Also, it would not be unreasonable for the AFP to provide info to a foreign country on the condition that the Australians are arrested when they arrive here with the drugs.

So you are suggesting the Indonesians allow Australians to smuggle drugs out of their country in contravention of their laws because it is unpleasant of the Indonesans to kill drug smugglers?

And what would you be saying if these drug smugglers vanished with the drugs?  And arrived back in this country without them after passing them on to some unknown person?

How would you explain the failure to apprehend the smugglers once the story broke?

Step One:

You say -


Quote:

Also, it would not be unreasonable for the AFP to provide info to a foreign country on the condition that the Australians are arrested when they arrive here with the drugs.

Step Two:

I say –


Quote:

Yeah, good idea, but that is not what Keelty or the AFP did.  Knowing pretty precisely what these idiots were up to, a couple of days before they had left Australia, Keelty dobbed them in to Indonesian Authorities with no conditions attached whatsoever.  He presented them, contrary to Government Policy, to the tender mercies of the death penalty brigade, an a platter.   The man KNEW he was allowing them to go to their deaths.

And………….then

THE STRAWMAN………..

Step Three:

You say –


Quote:

So you are suggesting the Indonesians allow Australians to smuggle drugs out of their country in contravention of their laws because it is unpleasant of the Indonesans to kill drug smugglers? And what would you be saying if these drug smugglers vanished with the drugs?  And arrived back in this country without them after passing them on to some unknown person? How would you explain the failure to apprehend the smugglers once the story broke?

Fact is DT, undeniably, that Keelty dobbed these idiots in to the murderous Country Indonesia, contrary to Australian Government Policy, and I have no idea how he manages to wash his hands each morning.

Aussie wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 8:52pm:

Fact is DT, undeniably, that Keelty dobbed these idiots in to the murderous Country Indonesia, contrary to Australian Government Policy, and I have no idea how he manages to wash his hands each morning.

I'm surprised that you maintain the hypocrisy of ranting when he does nothing and ranting when he does something (suggesting an irrational mind) but perhaps between rants you could provide evidence of this Australian Government Policy which prohibits the sharing of intel with Indonesia.  I have never heard of this secrecy between police forces.

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1491495.htm

;D

Aussie wrote on Feb 4^th, 2008 at 9:54pm:

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2005/s1491495.htm ;D

Yes, thanks for that - it appears I am right.  The AFP has discretion in these matters according to the directive.  And you will also be dismayed to learn that the courts agree with me.  

Justice Finn tossed out the case.


Quote:

the Court rejected the potential claim of misfeasance in a public office on the basis that there was nothing in the material to suggest that any of the AFP officers had acted with ‘reckless indifference’. There was no reasonable cause to believe that the decision or actions were invalid because they were improperly motivated.

Kelty and his officers acted with impeccable professionalism and acted within the law.

I do wish you dudes would stop defaming him.

I am not defaming him.  

I am pointing out that Keelty made a conscious and deliberate decision not to arrest and charge in Australia on a conspiracy count, but rather to allow nine young Australian idiots to leave these shores for their very likely grave, having already dobbed them in to their destination, a murderous Country.

Aussie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2008 at 1:50pm:

I am not defaming him.   I am pointing out that Keelty made a conscious and deliberate decision not to arrest and charge in Australia on a conspiracy count, but rather to allow nine young Australian idiots to leave these shores for their very likely grave, having already dobbed them in to their destination, a murderous Country.

What is this then?  You said


Quote:

He knowingly sent some young and stupid Australians to certain death

This states that Kelty was complicit in sending people to their certain deaths.

He did no such thing.  They committed the crime in which he took no part - he merely did his job as the situation required acting within the law of the country in which he serves.

They are responsible for their situations, not him.  Unless you believe a policeman doing his job is always responsible for the consequences of the decisions made by criminals.

Tell me, do you ever take responsibility for yourself?

DT, do not make me the Topic.  

The facts are, and Keelty will agree.......

1.  Nine young and stupid Australians, as a collective, planned and agreed to go to Indonesia to get drugs to bring back to Australia.

2.  Keelty was on to them.  He made a decision.

3.  Two, or about that, days before their planned departure, Keelty quite deliberately determined that he would allow these nine, who had already committed an offence in Australia, to leave Australia, and at the same time he told the Indonesians of their entire plans as known to him.

4.  He watched them leave Australia, he told the Indonesians that the mule headed dick heads were on the way.................when he could have arrested them here, and saved them from the Indonesian murderous process.

He made a quite deliberate choice.  The option he chose will lead to their deaths, and he knew that when he sat on his hands and allowed these idiots leave their more mercifull homeland.

He knew there were two choices.........arrest them here (and they fail in their plan to import drugs) or allow them to go to their grave, as  

(a)  He had already dobbed them in, and

(b)  He colluded with the Indonesians to ensure that they would be caught and he knew that when they were convicted they would be sentenced to death.

That was his process.

I could not do that, play with the life of Australians.  

I could easily have done it if Indonesia was not a murderous Country.

He chose to be part of the final catalysts of their deaths, when he had another viable option.

Fact.

Aussie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2008 at 8:23pm:

DT, do not make me the Topic.   The facts are, and Keelty will agree....... 1.  Nine young and stupid Australians, as a collective, planned and agreed to go to Indonesia to get drugs to bring back to Australia. 2.  Keelty was on to them.  He made a decision. 3.  Two, or about that, days before their planned departure, Keelty quite deliberately determined that he would allow these nine, who had already committed an offence in Australia, to leave Australia, and at the same time he told the Indonesians of their entire plans as known to him. 4.  He watched them leave Australia, he told the Indonesians that the mule headed dick heads were on the way.................when he could have arrested them here, and saved them from the Indonesian murderous process. He made a quite deliberate choice.  The option he chose will lead to their deaths, and he knew that when he sat on his hands and allowed these idiots leave their more mercifull homeland. He knew there were two choices.........arrest them here (and they fail in their plan to import drugs) or allow them to go to their grave, as   (a)  He had already dobbed them in, and (b)  He colluded with the Indonesians to ensure that they would be caught and he knew that when they were convicted they would be sentenced to death. That was his process. I could not do that, play with the life of Australians.   I could easily have done it if Indonesia was not a murderous Country. He chose to be part of the final catalysts of their deaths, when he had another viable option. Fact.

I'm not, I was commenting on your defamatory comment and asking if you believe in personal responsibility - you keep blaming everyone else for those drug smugglers actions.  Do you believe in personal responsibility?

The facts are not as you believe.  While you and the other 'victims' believe they are not responsible for what they do the law disagrees with you.  First the feds have discretionary judgement on such matters (it is their operational dictate) and the courts threw out the vexatious claims by people like you.

Put simply, you are wrong.

Criminals are responsible for their sentences.  Not the law keepers who ensure they are caught.  

Victims blame everyone else and these people are perpetrators - not victims.  

There is no charge that would stick had he arrested innocent tourists.  We do not have thought police yet - despite your determination to get some.

Tell me again why you are not a hypocrite for defaming him for acting and defaming him for not acting?

This is not a smart arse debate, DT.....it is about what the facts are....and they are, and Keelty will agree:





1.  Nine young and stupid Australians, as a collective, planned and agreed to go to Indonesia to get drugs to bring back to Australia.

2.  Keelty was on to them.  He made a decision.

3.  Two, or about that, days before their planned departure, Keelty quite deliberately determined that he would allow these nine, who had already committed an offence in Australia, to leave Australia, and at the same time he told the Indonesians of their entire plans as known to him.

4.  He watched them leave Australia, he told the Indonesians that the mule headed thingy heads were on the way.................when he could have arrested them here, and saved them from the Indonesian murderous process.

He made a quite deliberate choice.  The option he chose will lead to their deaths, and he knew that when he sat on his hands and allowed these idiots leave their more mercifull homeland.

He knew there were two choices.........arrest them here (and they fail in their plan to import drugs) or allow them to go to their grave, as  

(a)  He had already dobbed them in, and

(b)  He colluded with the Indonesians to ensure that they would be caught and he knew that when they were convicted they would be sentenced to death.

That was his process.

I could not do that, play with the life of Australians.  

I could easily have done it if Indonesia was not a murderous Country.

He chose to be part of the final catalysts of their deaths, when he had another viable option.





All facts.....

If you want to contest that I have any one of them wrong, proceed.

If you seek just an excuse to exchange smart arse comments, go to D&R.

Aussie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2008 at 9:19pm:

This is not a smart arse debate, DT.....it is about what the facts are....and they are, and Keelty will agree: 1.  Nine young and stupid Australians, as a collective, planned and agreed to go to Indonesia to get drugs to bring back to Australia. 2.  Keelty was on to them.  He made a decision. 3.  Two, or about that, days before their planned departure, Keelty quite deliberately determined that he would allow these nine, who had already committed an offence in Australia, to leave Australia, and at the same time he told the Indonesians of their entire plans as known to him. 4.  He watched them leave Australia, he told the Indonesians that the mule headed thingy heads were on the way.................when he could have arrested them here, and saved them from the Indonesian murderous process. He made a quite deliberate choice.  The option he chose will lead to their deaths, and he knew that when he sat on his hands and allowed these idiots leave their more mercifull homeland. He knew there were two choices.........arrest them here (and they fail in their plan to import drugs) or allow them to go to their grave, as   (a)  He had already dobbed them in, and (b)  He colluded with the Indonesians to ensure that they would be caught and he knew that when they were convicted they would be sentenced to death. That was his process. I could not do that, play with the life of Australians.   I could easily have done it if Indonesia was not a murderous Country. He chose to be part of the final catalysts of their deaths, when he had another viable option. All facts..... If you want to contest that I have any one of them wrong, proceed. If you seek just an excuse to exchange smart arse comments, go to D&R.

Repeating your fallacies won't suddenly make them right Aussie.

The courts disagree with you - it's that simple.   You and the Liebor Party (you said they hung him out to dry too)  may hate honest cops doing an honest job, but it doesn't make you (or the Liebor traitors) right - only bitter.

Cops don't 'dob people in' mate, they don't 'collude'.  And Kelty certainly can't have been 'sitting on his hands' as you claim, as you have just got through telling us all the things he did do.

I do not understand your hatred of honest cops, there has to be a reason, and I do not understand your defence of drug smugglers.  Perhaps you admire criminals and detest lawmen but whatever it is you are plainly wrong, the law says so.  And in this instance (a question of law) it is the ultimate judge.

Perhaps you could (after I have asked a few dozen times) explain what charge can be laid against innocent men and women borading planes who have committed no crimes?  If you keep avoiding the question it will become more and more obvious you have no answer.

Quote:

Repeating your fallacies won't suddenly make them right Aussie.

Point to any one fallacy among this:


Quote:

1.  Nine young and stupid Australians, as a collective, planned and agreed to go to Indonesia to get drugs to bring back to Australia. 2.  Keelty was on to them.  He made a decision. 3.  Two, or about that, days before their planned departure, Keelty quite deliberately determined that he would allow these nine, who had already committed an offence in Australia, to leave Australia, and at the same time he told the Indonesians of their entire plans as known to him. 4.  He watched them leave Australia, he told the Indonesians that the mule headed thingy heads were on the way.................when he could have arrested them here, and saved them from the Indonesian murderous process. He made a quite deliberate choice.  The option he chose will lead to their deaths, and he knew that when he sat on his hands and allowed these idiots leave their more mercifull homeland. He knew there were two choices.........arrest them here (and they fail in their plan to import drugs) or allow them to go to their grave, as   (a)  He had already dobbed them in, and (b)  He colluded with the Indonesians to ensure that they would be caught and he knew that when they were convicted they would be sentenced to death. That was his process. I could not do that, play with the life of Australians.   I could easily have done it if Indonesia was not a murderous Country. He chose to be part of the final catalysts of their deaths, when he had another viable option.

Stay focussed on that simple task, DT.

If, just once more, you rant on to some other rhetorical rubbish, you will have successfully shut me up through sheer boredom, but you will not have addressed the facts.

This is not a good sign for a successful career in Law.

The facts always come first, then the Law, and smart-arse crap last.

Aussie wrote on Feb 5^th, 2008 at 10:25pm:

Quote: Repeating your fallacies won't suddenly make them right Aussie. Point to any one fallacy among this: [quote] 1.  Nine young and stupid Australians, as a collective, planned and agreed to go to Indonesia to get drugs to bring back to Australia. 2.  Keelty was on to them.  He made a decision. 3.  Two, or about that, days before their planned departure, Keelty quite deliberately determined that he would allow these nine, who had already committed an offence in Australia, to leave Australia, and at the same time he told the Indonesians of their entire plans as known to him. 4.  He watched them leave Australia, he told the Indonesians that the mule headed thingy heads were on the way.................when he could have arrested them here, and saved them from the Indonesian murderous process. He made a quite deliberate choice.  The option he chose will lead to their deaths, and he knew that when he sat on his hands and allowed these idiots leave their more mercifull homeland. He knew there were two choices.........arrest them here (and they fail in their plan to import drugs) or allow them to go to their grave, as   (a)  He had already dobbed them in, and (b)  He colluded with the Indonesians to ensure that they would be caught and he knew that when they were convicted they would be sentenced to death. That was his process. I could not do that, play with the life of Australians.   I could easily have done it if Indonesia was not a murderous Country. He chose to be part of the final catalysts of their deaths, when he had another viable option.

Stay focussed on that simple task, DT.

If, just once more, you rant on to some other rhetorical rubbish, you will have successfully shut me up through sheer boredom, but you will not have addressed the facts.

This is not a good sign for a successful career in Law.

The facts always come first, then the Law, and smart-arse crap last.[/quote]

I already did but if you enjoy me repeating myself I will.

No offence was committed in Australia.    Your claim one was is fallacious.

No one knows if Kelty told the Indonesians of 'their entire plans', I doubt anyone other than they knew the plans in entirety.  You are speculating.  This claim of yours is fallacious.

Kelty could not have arrested them here and he could not have 'saved them from "the Indonesian murderous process" '.  Only they could have done that.  Your allegation is fallacious.

The 'option he chose' will not necessarily 'lead to their deaths'.  This is a matter for the Indonesians as a result of actions by the criminals themselves.   Your allegation is fallacious.

He can never guarantee 'they fail in their plan to import drugs'.  This is fallacious.

Pretty much everything you have made up is fairy tale stuff Aussie - not real life.   I'm happy to keep repeating it if you are not embarrassed by the truth of your folly.

But lay off honest cops.   Your fallacies don't make him guilty - they only make you look lost in fiction.

I vote DT for PM and attorney-general

http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/228/72627326jc4.png

Why thank you IQ.  Dunno what happened to Aussie - he's not around to congratulate me.

Anyway, back to the topic (sort of). From crikey, on Jihadi Sheilas (ABC, last Tuesday night):

David Lenihan writes: After watching the ABC doco on those two Jihad crusaders I am now very confused. Why? Well take this from the program... Ms Hutchinson nor Ms Douglas has ever faced terrorism-related charges but both are known to the authorities for their alleged links to extremists and terrorist groups. Dr Haneef was arrested and confined by our feds on an assumption he was, through his link with his second cousins, half a world away, associating and perchance plotting with a terrorist. No actual proof, just hunches, misinformation, assumptions and bravado. Here we have two Jihad associates, known, no arguments, proven connection to terrorists. One even formally married to a killer... what action did Mr Keelty's high flyers take? None, zilch, forget it. Former Minister Andrews, silence. I'm confused because that’s illogical. These two were known to the Feds long before the good doctor became a scapegoat for action. The former Minister must have been told of their backgrounds, silence. The only conclusion I have drawn is that the election has been lost. There is no gain. Not even in King Keelty's public self congratulations of himself.

Crikey, what a load of bollocks.  By the way, were the Jihad sheilas just about to board planes with one way tickets?

http://news.smh.com.au/bali-nine-judgments-downgraded-lawyer/20080306-1xas.html

Lawyers for three of the Bali Nine have confirmed their clients' death sentences have been reduced to life in prison.

Erwin Siregar said he had not yet read the judgment but could confirm the lives of three Australians - Si Yi Chen, Matthew Norman and Tan Duc Thanh Nguyen - had been spared.

http://news.smh.com.au/three-of-the-bali-nine-spared-death/20080305-1x96.html

The decision means there are now three Bali Nine members remaining on death row. They are yet to lodge their own judicial reviews against the death penalty.

This is great news FD...now for Scott Rush and the others.

Will this cause a problem I wonder with the population of Indonesia itself..?

By that I mean an undermining of their own judicial system .? This may set a precedent, but maybe a precedence doesnt mean much under Indonesian law!

What makes you think it is undermining their own system? I think some of the Bali bombers got a similar pardon.

freediver wrote on Mar 6^th, 2008 at 2:25pm:

What makes you think it is undermining their own system? I think some of the Bali bombers got a similar pardon.

Only that the Indonesian Judges  themselves have always emphatically denounced any kind of deviation from the actual process of Indonesian style justice.

They did make a great display of taking a hardline on foreign drug traffickers

And that they were so harsh with Schappelle Corby.[ no they didnt hang/shoot her, but 20 yrs is ridiculous]

This is a little surprising I think.

The Bali Bombers dont deserve any softening of laws for what they did.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23386213-2,00.html

MOHAMED Haneef has warned that the Rudd Government needs to expand the powers of the judicial inquiry into his case to ensure the truth about last year's bungled investigation is uncovered.

In an exclusive interview with The Australian from India, Dr Haneef said the inquiry should be given powers to ensure all documents are released, and that witnesses, including Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty and former immigration minister Kevin Andrews - as well as investigators, prosecutors and bureaucrats  - are compelled to give evidence and face cross-examination.

The inquiry's limited powers and scope have been criticised, with legal commentators saying it is more restricted than the Howard government's inquiry into the AWB scandal.

Dr Haneef's lawyers are seeking discussions with federal Attorney-General Robert McLelland in an effort to widen the inquiry, which does not have the power to subpoena witnesses or compel testimony.

So, haneef lost did he ??
thought he may do the trick the indian cricket team did when they disagreed with the umpire.
Threaten to go home.

Who pays for all this legal talk ?? My taxes

Sprintcyclist wrote on Mar 17^th, 2008 at 6:49pm:

So, haneef lost did he ??

Not sure what standard you are trying to apply. Most people would interpret it as a win and a vindication, though he still got screwed over.

---

Haneef hopes for inquiry 'clean slate'

http://news.smh.com.au/haneef-hopes-for-inquiry-clean-slate/20080317-1zvo.html

Former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef says he hopes a judicial inquiry into his bungled case will give him a "clean slate" to get on with his life.

wrote on Mar 6^th, 2008 at 2:33pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 6th, 2008 at 2:25pm: What makes you think it is undermining their own system? I think some of the Bali bombers got a similar pardon. Only that the Indonesian Judges  themselves have always emphatically denounced any kind of deviation from the actual process of Indonesian style justice. They did make a great display of taking a hardline on foreign drug traffickers And that they were so harsh with Schappelle Corby.[ no they didnt hang/shoot her, but 20 yrs is ridiculous] This is a little surprising I think. The Bali Bombers dont deserve any softening of laws for what they did.

They were originally sentenced to life prisonment. This was reduced on appeal to 20 years. The prosecution appealed the leniency of the reduction and won. They were sentenced to death. This latest decision has now reverted the sentence back to life because the defence argued that the death penalty was not the original sentence sought by the prosecution nor was it the penalty the prosecution asked for when they appealed.

20 years for importating the quantity of (high grade) cannabis caught on Corby may sound ridiculous in Australia but is quite standard for Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. In fact, everyone knows that the penalty is death.

The sad things about Corby (and given the alledged corruption within the Indo court system) Corby could have gotten out a lot earlier. Sure, the sentence was 20 years, but after appeal she could have likely gotten a lighter sentence. Corby's case was hardly reported in Indonesia. Therefore, most indonesians did not know about the case. However, the uproar by the Australian public, anti-Indonesian sentiments, letter writings condemning Indonesia as barbaric, Indonesian shops damaged, white powdery substance sent to the Indonesian consulate, Sydney shock jock comparing the judges to monkeys "they don't even speak English, they're straight out of the trees" were reported (understandably). This raised mutually anti-Australian sentiment by the Indonesian public causing the courts to steel themselves to any leniency. Diplomacy is mostly about face-saving (especially in the Asian region). Unfortunately, Australia does not understand the ethos of South East Asia despite being part of the region.

Why do you think Michelle Lesley and DJ Nick Taylor got such lenient sentences? Sure, the quantity they had are significantly less but compare 3 months jail to 20 years. Very little publicity, the Indonesian courts are seen to be tough on drugs but later the sentence will be reduced. However, treat them with arrogance and disdain and you'll get very little sympathy back. Especially, when Australia is largely (rightly or not) seen as a racist country by Asian.

http://news.smh.com.au/aussie-drug-mule-to-face-firing-squad/20080319-20fq.html

An Australian woman will face a firing squad in Vietnam, after an appeals court upgraded her life jail term for heroin trafficking.

The Court of Appeals on Tuesday accepted a proposal by prosecutors in Ho Chi Minh City to upgrade the sentence for Jasmine Luong, 34, an Australian of Vietnamese origin, the state-run Liberation Saigon newspaper said.

http://news.theage.com.au/haneef-probe-8-million-cost-blowout/20080404-23ku.html


Greens Senator Kerry Nettle tabled the original question about the Haneef investigation, and on Friday said she had tabled a second question in parliament asking the AFP to detail what the officers were doing.

"I think it's concerning that there are so many people involved in the Haneef investigation," she told AAP.

"I want to know what those people are doing, I want to know if there's still a witch hunt and I want to know if the AFP are trying to justify the way they treated Haneef by finding something further to link him to what happened in England."








This could be the AFP's way of avoiding answering questions at the inquiry on the grounds of National Security and jeapodising an "ongoing investigations".


::)

Acid Monkey wrote on Apr 4^th, 2008 at 2:31pm:

http://news.theage.com.au/haneef-probe-8-million-cost-blowout/20080404-23ku.html Greens Senator Kerry Nettle tabled the original question about the Haneef investigation, and on Friday said she had tabled a second question in parliament asking the AFP to detail what the officers were doing. "I think it's concerning that there are so many people involved in the Haneef investigation," she told AAP. "I want to know what those people are doing, I want to know if there's still a witch hunt and I want to know if the AFP are trying to justify the way they treated Haneef by finding something further to link him to what happened in England." This could be the AFP's way of avoiding answering questions at the inquiry on the grounds of National Security and jeapodising an "ongoing investigations". ::)

Witch hunt?  Is she the judge and jury?  Has she decided whether police investigations are valid or invalid?  Is she a policewoman?  Is she a Greeny and likes to tell everyone what they may do?

Quote:

Witch hunt?  Is she the judge and jury?  Has she decided whether police investigations are valid or invalid?  Is she a policewoman?  Is she a Greeny and likes to tell everyone what they may do

The Greens have every right to comment because this has been a witch hunt.  Haneef has been cleared by the highest Court of Law in the land and had his visa returned, so he is lawfully entitled to his freedom.

Why aren't the AFP using some of these resources to lay charges on the executives and directors of the AWB who have already been determined to be complicit in the heinous crime of enabling acts of terrorism?  

haneef has been positively associated with terrorists for an extended period.

Should have sent him off to guantanano.

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Oops, something went wrong there FD.

When I went to your new 'Topic,' I got:

'Error: You are not allowed to access this section.'

Off-Topic replies have been moved to this Topic.

Sorry, I deleted the intermediate thread when I should have left it up. Try this link.

POWERFUL evidence of Mohamed Haneef's innocence has emerged at the Old Bailey in London, evidence the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Prosecutions appear to have ignored in holding the Gold Coast doctor for questioning last year and then charging him with a terrorism offence.

The case against Dr Haneef always centred on allegations that his second cousin Sabeel Ahmed, a doctor practising in England, was part of a terrorist organisation. But in the Old Bailey on Friday Mr Justice Calvert-Smith accepted there was "no sign" of Ahmed "being an extremist or party to extremist views".

Evidence for this has been in the hands of British police from the early days of their investigation into failed car bombings carried out by Ahmed's brother Kafeel last year. But it only saw the light of day in the Old Bailey last Friday.

Its publication raises difficult questions for Australian police and the Commonwealth DPP.

Mr Keelty told a Senate Estimates inquiry in February that $7.5 million had so far been spent employing 600 security officials to work on the Haneef case. He says the police investigation of Dr Haneef continues

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2008/04/13/1208024990541.html?page=2

http://news.smh.com.au/afp-colluded-with-andrews-haneef-lawyer/20080429-2979.html

Lawyers representing former terror suspect Dr Mohamed Haneef have accused federal police of attempting to re-write history following claims investigating officers were caught unaware by a decision to cancel his work visa.

Fairfax Newspapers on Monday quoted "a source who had worked with the Howard government" who claimed the Australian Federal Police did not anticipate then Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews decision to cancel Dr Haneef's visa.

The source said the cancellation, which came just hours after Dr Haneef was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate, had "spoiled the police investigation".

"If Dr Haneef had been freed on bail the police would have kept him under surveillance and gathered any evidence that might be out there," the source is quoted as saying.

However, Dr Haneef's legal team on Tuesday dismissed the story.

"It's bullshit because we know that the AFP was in contact with the migration department before the visa was cancelled," Lawyer Rod Hodgson told AAP.

"They cooked up a scheme between the two of them to cancel the visa in the event that they got an adverse finding in the magistrate's court."

Mr Hodgson, from law firm Maurice Blackburn, has joined Dr Haneef's legal team ahead of a judicial inquiry into the case which begins in Canberra on Wednesday.

He echoed calls from fellow lawyer Peter Russo for the inquiry head John Clarke QC to be given "coercive powers" to force witnesses including Mr Andrews and AFP chief Mick Keelty to give evidence.

Both men have stated they will cooperate with the inquiry but Mr Hodgson said he remained sceptical.

"I do not have confidence that there will be full and frank cooperation from some of the key players," he said.

"We don't have answers to questions we want answered and are concerned that Mr Clarke is going to have some trouble getting to the bottom of those matters without being given coercive powers."

Dr Haneef was held without charge for 12 days after being arrested at Brisbane International Airport last July for his alleged links to a failed terror plot in the UK.

The Indian national was eventually charged with supporting terrorism but the charge collapsed within days, prompting his return to his family in Bangalore.

His legal team then successfully appealed Mr Andrews decision to cancel his visa on "character grounds", paving the way for his return to work in Australia if he can find work.

Mr Clarke will outline how he intends to conduct the inquiry at Wednesday's hearing and is due to report back to the federal government by September 30.

He is expected to produce a public report and a private one.

Howard's office involved in Haneef case days after arrest

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,23879057-2702,00.html?from=public_rss

THE department of former prime minister John Howard became involved in the handling of the Mohamed Haneef affair just days after the Indian-born doctor was arrested over a British terror plot, a tribunal has heard.
At a hearing before the Commonwealth Administrative Appeals Tribunal in Brisbane today, it was revealed representatives of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet met with immigration and foreign affairs officials on July 4 last year, two days after Dr Haneef's arrest.

From the meeting, the various departments prepared an options paper detailing possible courses of action, depending on whether federal police decided to lay charges against the Gold Coast-based doctor.

Dr Haneef was finally charged with supporting terrorism on July 14 and granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate two days later.

Within hours of the magistrate's decision, then immigration minister Kevin Andrews cancelled Dr Haneef’s work visa, preventing his release.

However, the case against Dr Haneef collapsed within a fortnight and he was permitted to return to his family in Bangalore, where he now lives.

Mr Howard has previously denied any involvement in the matter.

However, lawyers for Dr Haneef said the involvement of Mr Howard's department raised the possibility the former prime minister may have colluded with his immigration minister to create a political storm similar to the Tampa controversy which helped the Coalition win the 2001 election.

Dr Haneef's legal team today appealed to the AAT for the release of the options paper and other documents being withheld by the Department of Immigration.

Government lawyers this morning agreed to provide more than 250 of the estimated 280 documents sought by Dr Haneef's legal team, but excluded 15 documents it claimed were exempted from freedom of information legislation.

They argued some of the documents were protected by law while it was not in the public interest for others to be released.

A witness for the government, Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet first assistant secretary Angus Campbell, said the options paper was an initial draft.

“The document is incomplete - it contained factual inaccuracies later identified by some of the departments,” he told the tribunal.

freediver wrote on Jun 18^th, 2008 at 9:33pm:

However, lawyers for Dr Haneef said the involvement of Mr Howard's department raised the possibility the former prime minister may have colluded with his immigration minister to create a political storm similar to the Tampa controversy which helped the Coalition win the 2001 election.

No! Really?! That really surprising to hear.  :-[ :-/

This is looking more and more like deliberate defamation and dog whistling initiated by the AFP and the former Liberal govt for political gain. It was plain as day for all (except Howardhuggers) what was happening then. All these latest reports, are merely confirmation.


Sprintcyclist wrote on Jul 15^th, 2007 at 6:02pm:

Thanks john for protecting me

No. Thanks John, for protecting the Liberal Party's and your own self interest, rail roading civil liberties, and inciting fear and hatred.



Police rift on Haneef revealed
Chris Hammer
July 10, 2008

NEW documents have revealed that Mohamed Haneef was charged with a terrorism-related offence against the repeated advice of Queensland police.

In a formal submission to the Clarke inquiry, the Queensland Police Service says it did not believe there was enough evidence to charge the Gold Coast doctor, and that it advised the federal police accordingly.

"In terms of charging Dr Haneef … the QPS, based on what was known to it at the time, provided advice to the AFP that the QPS was of the view there was insufficient evidence to support a charge against Dr Haneef," the submission states.

The submission asserts that four or five times in the day before Dr Haneef was charged, Queensland police officers reiterated their opinion that there was insufficient evidence.

One senior Queensland officer, Detective Superintendent Gayle Hogan, said she was present when the Australian Federal Police's senior investigating officer in Brisbane, Ramzi Jabbour, spoke to senior management by phone and advised them of the the Queensland police opinion.

"Detective Superintendent Hogan was then advised by Senior Investigating Officer Jabbour that he was going to charge Dr Haneef," the submission recounted.

Dr Haneef's solicitor, Rod Hodgson, said the Clarke inquiry would need to determine who ultimately decided to charge his client.

"If one law enforcement agency felt there was not sufficient evidence, why did another agency consider there was sufficient evidence? That raises questions that the Clarke inquiry will have to address about possible ulterior motives for the charge being laid," Mr Hodgson said. "Who authorised those charges ? How far up the chain of the AFP was the decision to charge ratified?"

A spokesman for the federal police said last night that the agency was co-operating fully with the inquiry, but that it would be inappropriate to comment until it was completed.

The Queensland police advice proved to be prescient. The case against Dr Haneef collapsed within a fortnight and the charges against him were withdrawn.

Queensland police provided intelligence, laboratory and investigative support for the investigation after Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane airport on July 2 last year.

Submissions from the Queensland police, the federal Attorney-General's Department and Dr Haneef's lawyers have been posted on the inquiry website, but submissions from the federal police, ASIO, and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions have been withheld.

In a statement, the head of the inquiry, John Clarke, QC, said their submissions were withheld because they contained material that either had a bearing on national security matters or that might be prejudicial to pending trials.

He has requested that the agencies produce versions that can be released to the public.

The Rudd Government appointed Mr Clarke, a former NSW Supreme Court judge, earlier this year to investigate the affair.

(Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/police-rift-on-haneef-revealed-20080709-3clm.html?page=-1)

Sprintcyclist wrote on Apr 6^th, 2008 at 9:11pm:

haneef has been positively associated with terrorists for an extended period. Should have sent him off to guantanano.

Of course, die hard (warts and all) Liberal supporters will still follow the party line like lemmings towards the cliff edge.

Haneef charge 'politically motivated'
July 10, 2008 - 2:10PM

Revelations the Australian Federal Police charged Mohamed Haneef with terrorism offences against the advice of its Queensland counterparts are evidence of political motivation, his lawyer says.

The Queensland Police Service's submission to the Clarke inquiry reveals officers assigned to assist the AFP in its investigation repeatedly advised there was insufficient evidence to charge the Indian national.

Former judge John Clarke is investigating the arrest, detention and charging of Dr Haneef last year on terror-related charges, and his subsequent release.

Dr Haneef's Australian lawyer Rod Hodgson said the Queensland submission proved his client was charged for reasons other than national security interests.

"Those factors may well have been political, we now know that the Prime Minister's department was involved in the matter from less than 48 hours after Dr Haneef was detained and, you know, join the dots,'' he said.

"If you've got one law enforcement agency who is intimately involved in the matter saying at the time he ought not to be charged because there is no evidence or no sufficient evidence, then that suggests those improper factors have motivated the decision to charge him.''

AAP

(Source: http://www.theage.com.au/national/haneef-charge-politically-motivated-20080710-3cz0.html)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24080669-2,00.html

THE Australian Federal Police has been accused of denying Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef a lawyer and the chance to protest his innocence before a magistrate when he was arrested last year.

The Indian doctor's legal team, Maurice Blackburn lawyers, also say the AFP could have broken the law by failing to provide five records of interviews taken with him to his lawyers.

Maurice Blackburn partner Rod Hodgson said the transcripts were released to him about two weeks ago with a letter from AFP chief Counsel James Watson, bringing the total number of transcripts to seven from the presumed two.

Dr Haneef was arrested at Brisbane International Airport as he boarded a plane for Bangalore on July 2, 2007, after police linked his mobile phone SIM card to botched terror attacks in Britain.

The Gold Coast-based doctor was returning to India to visit his wife and newborn baby girl, who was ill.

Lawyer Rod Hodgson says there is no way to test the accuracy of the secret evidence.

"The horse flu inquiry was given Royal Commission powers - our national security and our human rights cannot be any less important than the health of our horse industry."

Extract:

At 4.44pm yesterday - with half the country's media on strike - the national police force finally conceded that its investigation of Mohamed Haneef was a dud.

After more than a year of sleuthing, the AFP has found nothing that would incriminate the former Gold Coast doctor.

Instead of apologising to the nation and to Haneef, the AFP slid a two-paragraph statement into the public domain at a time when it could easily have been missed.

The AFP was already looking amateurish because of its conduct during Haneef's bungled arrest and detention on terror charges that had no basis in fact.

Now it simply looks sly.

It has been clear for more than a year that the AFP had arrested and detained an innocent man. But instead of admitting as much, the forces under the control of Commissioner Mick Keelty ploughed on - clearly hoping to find something, anything, that would justify its earlier bungles.

When they found nothing, they made this public on the same day that the remaining media would be full of political news from the US.

For law enforcement officers, the AFP make great spin doctors.

....

The full article in The Australian

Keelty cannot survive this.  Hayseed won't either.

haneef is entitled to receive compensation.  Hayseed dragged his name through the mud, and now, the guy's reputation will forever be slimed by the hayseed fraud.

Make no mistake, this was all about an attempt for  political advantage at pre election time, and hayseed could not have cared less about the price one innocent Doctor haneef would have to pay, and he will be paying even though he has been cleared, and will be cleared again by Clarke.

Walk in haneef's shoes.

Mohamed Haneef sues former immigration minister for loss of earnings

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/haneef-sues-former-immigration-minister-for-loss-of-earnings/story-e6frg6nf-1225886884896

CLEARED terror suspect Mohamed Haneef is suing former immigration minister Kevin Andrews.

He is demanding the Liberal frontbencher pay the difference between what he is earning as a doctor in the Middle East and what he might have made in Australia.

Dr Haneef's lawyers also filed a claim against the Australian government yesterday for unspecified financial damages arising from his arrest and lengthy detention in 2007, when he was wrongly accused of being involved in failed bombings in Britain.

The former Gold Coast Hospital registrar has gone after Mr Andrews personally for alleged defamation, citing interviews the then minister gave detailing or inferring that he was party to the overseas terrorism plot.

Dr Haneef, who is now working as a general practitioner in Dubai, alleges defamatory statements by Mr Andrews cost him pay and career advancement.

A statement of claim filed yesterday in the Queensland Supreme Court asserts that Dr Haneef received no income from December 21, 2007 - the date the work visa Mr Andrews had revoked was restored by the full Federal Court - until he took up his current contract in Dubai in July 2008.

He now earned less than he did on the Gold Coast and had lost the opportunity to train in Australia as a specialist physician and progress his medical career.

Dr Haneef's claim against the government states that as a result of his "false imprisonment and malicious prosecution" he experienced stress, hurt, humiliation and loss of liberty, for which he was entitled to damages.

His lawyer, Rod Hodgson, of law firm Maurice Blackburn, said last night Mr Andrews was being sued for defamation in the expectation the Howard government minister would be indemnified by the current Labor government.

"We are going after Mr Andrews in a personal capacity but in expectation that . . . because he made his comments in his capacity as a minister that he would be covered," Mr Hodgson said last night.

A spokesman for Mr Andrews, who holds the opposition portfolios of families, housing and human services, said the law suit was now with the MP's lawyers, and he would not discuss it.

The department and office of the federal Attorney-General also declined to comment.

Mr Hodgson said there had been "preliminary discussions" with the government to settle the case out of court. Dr Haneef's objective was a "global resolution" of both actions. "We remain pretty confident that the government wants this blight on Australian history expunged," he said.

Mr Hodgson declined to say how much compensating Dr Haneef would cost the taxpayer, except that "we are talking about considerable" loss of income and future earnings.

The foreign-trained doctor was arrested at Brisbane airport on July 2, 2007, while attempting to board a flight home to India. At the time, he was alleged by Australian Federal Police to have been linked to an attempted car bombing in London and the bid by Islamist terrorists, including his fatally injured cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, to crash a blazing Jeep into Glasgow airport.

A mobile phone SIM card belonging to Dr Haneef was said to have been found in the wreckage of the car, when this was not the case. He was charged with a single count of recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation and held in custody, but this was withdrawn 25 days later for lack of evidence.

Later, an inquiry headed by John Clarke QC found there had been no evidence to link Dr Haneef to the failed attacks.

Dr Haneef's statement of claim against the government for unspecified damages for wrongful imprisonment and malicious prosecution, alleges that the officer in charge of the AFP investigation, Commander Ramzi Jabbour, knew within a week of Dr Haneef's arrest there was insufficient evidence with which to charge him.

The statement of claim alleges that Commander Jabbour's action in charging and prosecuting Dr Haneef was improper and motivated by malice.

Sounds good to me....

I don't believe Andrews was unaware of the fact that Dr Haneef's sim card was NOT used in the alleged attack....

It would certainly make for an interesting case, if it were to proceed far enough in the court system for the facts behind the case to be thoroughly examined, but I fear that will not be the likely outcome.
I expect that a heap of money will be thrown in his direction with a please shut the heck up, attached to it.

The issues I would like to know a lot more about, would be just what evidence was presented to Mr Andrews, and who compiled the evidence.
I remember at the time, making comments about the politicisation of the case by Andrews, as seeming highly improper, and if it turns out that in fact there was NO evidence to support the charges laid against Mr Haneef, then the former Minister, and the former PM, to whom he answered, should be called to explain in front of a judge, what drove their actions.
There is also the possibility that Mr Haneef was "supportive" of extremist Islamist politics, and if so, the extent of that support should also be thoroughly examined.

I would love to see the real truth revealed fully, and if we the taxpayers have to foot the bill for it, then we have a right to know exactly what went on behind the closed doors of the former Liberal government.

Despite all the evidence to the contrary - in the entire WORLD - there will ALWAYS be some that declare him 'a terrorist'

Because he is a Muslim

There can be little doubt, that the Haneef case was a cynical and shameful political stunt, by the Howardian Libs - who actively demonised and vilified an innocent man, in order to self-servingly pervert the course of justice...

Then there was Abbott & Co's vexatious abuse of our legal system to destroy a political opponent in Hanson. Not that I support Hanson in any way, but I have no doubt that she was a vulnerable victim of powerfully-partisan sewer politics - Abbott & Co cynically usurped the authority of the AEC and judiciary. Her case ought never have been spilled over into our courts by members of any political party!

buzzanddidj wrote on Jul 20^th, 2010 at 11:54am:

Despite all the evidence to the contrary - in the entire WORLD - there will ALWAYS be some that declare him 'a terrorist' Because he is a Muslim

Android comes to mind.  :)

Isn't it peaceful here without him.  :D :D

Didn't this topic come back to bite the original poster on the ar$e?

:D