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

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

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.

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.'

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.

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.''

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.

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