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

Should have sent him off to guantanano.

Oops, something went wrong there FD.

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

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

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

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.

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:


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)

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)

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."

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.