The Haneef farce
Terrorism laws - - Posted on July, 14 at 2:36 pm by Ken L
Most of the individuals in the Howard Government were obviously prepared to leave liberal democratic principles at home as the price of power, but first amongst equals in this regard is undoubtedly Philip Ruddock.
Ruddock seems to have spent most of his political career disproving the notion that he’s a pale imitation of his father. Max was the sort of pollie who’d stand at a public meeting, throw his arms at the audience and cry “I love these people!” I suspect young Phil was so mortified by this expression of politics as performance art that he adopted Vincent Price as the role model for his public persona. Or maybe he genuinely is just a soulless creep, who can tell?
Anyway Ruddock Junior might be the nation’s First Law Officer but he behaves more like the Chief of Detectives, giving frequent briefings on the progress of police investigations. How he pretends that he can subsequently bring an impartial mind to the exercise of his considerable discretion as an officer of the court is beyond me.
We see this absence of principle being displayed once again in the treatment of Mohamed Haneef, the Brisbane doctor who’s been detained without charge for almost two weeks now while police examine his computer records, home unit, car, office, clothes and anything else they can think of that might connect him with a failed terrorist plot in Great Britain. From the very beginning it’s been apparent, on close listening to Federal Police Commissioner Keelty’s measured statements, that neither Dr Haneef nor his colleague who was also detained briefly was likely to have done anything seriously wrong. Nevertheless that hasn’t stopped Howard’s mob and Ruddock in particular exploiting the poor bastard to wring out every last drop of political mileage that they can.
There’s no need to resort to any special pleading on behalf of Dr Haneef: the initial investigation of his relationship with the UK terrorists should have been investigated discreetly and if possible, with his co-operation. If it turned out that he’d committed an offence then by all means make announcements about how tirelessly the government is protecting the citizenry but unless and until that happened, simple human decency demanded that the matter be handled sensitively. But simple human decency is not a characteristic that one would ever associate with Howard’s mob.
If it turns out that Dr Haneef has done nothing wrong and he is released to go about his business, the decent thing for Ruddock to do would be to issue a public apology, explaining that innocent people will sometimes get caught up in anti-terrorism policing and emphasising to the world that the doctor should be returned to his former state of anonymity as quickly as possible. In fact of course nothing of the kind will happen. Ruddock is about as likely to admit doctrinal error as the pope.
The ugly truth seems to be that some people associated with the investigation are determined to ensure that Dr Haneef’s name and reputation will be permanently blackened and that even if he is released, suspicion will be attached to him forever. As usual, the media seems more than happy to help in this endeavour.
Already we have the lie firmly established that Dr Haneef was lucky to be apprehended when he was on the point of fleeing Australia, when the most basic police inquiries would have revealed that he was making a planned trip for which he had applied for and been granted leave by his employer. The fact that he only had a one way ticket has repeatedly been cited as evidence of some kind of guilt, overlooking the doctor’s explanation that he and his family intended to travel back to Brisbane together and that he was going to buy tickets once their travel arrangements had been finalised. I know this might sound like a thin yarn to people who make flight bookings by asking their PA to arrange some first or business class tickets please, but there are still people in the world for whom air travel is a major expense. Waiting to buy cheap seats on non-transferrable flights is a common sense practice used by the common herd, which politicians and public servants probably aren’t even aware of.
Somebody has been very keen to leak information like this in order to make Dr Haneef guilty by innuendo. Now today the same tactics have ensured that even if he is released tomorrow it will not be without a stain on his character. Quite the opposite; he will spend the rest of his life with a cloud over him.
As reported on the front page of today’s SMHerald:
THE Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef emailed an associate shortly after the failed British terrorist attacks saying he would have to leave Australia in a hurry, and did not mention visiting his ailing wife and child, according to evidence obtained by federal police.
So there you go … is there any need for the jury to retire? He said he would have to leave Australia in a hurry – which we already knew and for which he has already supplied a perfectly reasonable explanation, unless you think he deliberately arranged for his wife to have a child to give himself an alibi – but he failed to mention the reason. Well there you go, what further evidence could anyone want? He’s obviously as guilty as hell.
Well actually there is more ‘evidence’:
In an affidavit presented to a magistrate, Jim Gordon, an officer is quoted as saying he suspected Dr Haneef “has not been entirely truthful” about his departure.
Look for an increase in the conviction rate of criminals all around Australia real soon now, as magistrates are persuaded to lock them away on the basis of police ‘suspicions’ that suspects ‘haven’t been entirely truthful’.
What a fucking travesty of our justice system. Since when were anybody’s ‘suspicions’ about truthfulness or otherwise relevant to anything? Isn’t something called ‘evidence’ supposed to be the cornerstone of our adversarial system? Oh of course, I was forgetting that damning email.
***
I’d written the above as the start of an intended post when I read that Dr Haneef has been charged. I was tempted to rewrite the whole thing but let it stand, because I believe it’s still pertinent.
What has the doctor been charged with? Did he supply explosives to the terrorists? Was he supposed to make the fatal call that triggered the car bombs? Did he at least conceal information that might have prevented a tragedy?
No, none of these. He did family members a favour by giving them a mobile phone in 2005 2006. For that, he now faces 15 years in prison.
Police will allege Haneef supported a terrorist organisation by “recklessly” giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning car bomb attacks in the UK.
“The specific allegation involves recklessness rather than intention,” AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty told reporters in Canberra 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.”
EDIT: more from Reuters - ‘When Haneef left Britain in 2006 to travel to Australia to work, he left his mobile telephone sim card, which one of the suspects later used to access a cheaper telephone deal.’
This is beyond absurd. It’s 10 times worse than the Hicks matter because Ruddock can’t hide behind the excuse that another government is running the case and his hands are tied. Unless there is information being concealed of which we have no inkling, this ridiculous charge reeks of a government giving instructions that Dr Haneef was to be charged with something – anything – to avoid making the detention look stupid.
If you listen very quietly, you can hear the sound of tens of thousands of non-white Anglo-Saxons – people who were contemplating visiting Australia, or seeking residency, or coming here to study; professional and technical people whom employers are desperately trying to attract – you can hear them crossing Australia off their list of destinations, just in case some deranged cousin gets caught up in an alleged terrorist plot while they happen to be in Oz and it turns out they gave them a mobile phone or a credit card number or something.
Still these are piffling considerations compared to what’s truly important … reviving the Glory Days when the Howard Government triumphantly led the charge to expel those dark devils who dared to threaten our nation.
Howard of course has immediately reminded us that Dr Haneef deserves the presumption of innocence … while observing, just in the course of conversation:
“But without commenting on his particular circumstances, all of this is a reminder that terrorism is a global threat … you can’t pick and choose where you fight terrorism.
“You can’t say I will fight it over there but I won’t fight it here.
“It is also fair to say that the anti-terrorism laws that this government has enacted are all to their very last clause needed and I have said before if we need to strengthen them we will strengthen them in the future.
“But I am not going to make any comment about Dr Haneef’s case.
Perish the thought prime minister that you would make any comment about Dr Haneef.
Will Rudd condone this charade of justice? It will be a good test of whether there is a core of real principle to go with the polished public persona.
UPDATE:
They are opposing bail. What are they scared of - that he’ll recklessly give away another SIM card?
FURTHER UPDATE:
Andrew Bartlett’s views are here. He states the maximum penalty is 25 years, not 15. He also observes astutely:
If there are sufficient sureties, he may be released on bail while all this goes on. Anyone who assists him runs the risk of not only being smeared - that’s a given – but of coming under suspicion of breaching the law.
Oh, and he provides the answer to my rhetorical question about Kevin Rudd:
If you think things might be better after the election, here is Kevin Rudd’s politically correct response.
“My message to the Australian people is this: that when it comes to terrorism, terrorists and those who support terrorist organisations, this country must continue to adopt a hardline uncompromising stance - there are no alternatives,” Mr Rudd said
Got that? There is no alternative approach that governments and their agents - indeed our country - can take on this issue. Not one.
Bipartisan justice in 21st century Australia.
MORE:
And just so you know …
Dr. Haneef was detained by the Australian police after his SIM card was found in the possession of Sabeel Ahmed, according to an Australian police affidavit, which was provided to The New York Times. After being detained, Dr. Haneef voluntarily submitted to a six-hour taped interview. He said that he had given his SIM card to Dr. Ahmed one year ago, in July 2006, when he was leaving Britain, where he had been studying.
The charge does not name any terrorist organization, and does not say that Dr. Haneef knew he was giving his SIM card to any organization. He is charged with “being reckless as to whether the organization was a terrorist organization,” Mr. Russo said.
Sounds like a 25 year sentence would be letting him off light … I vote they recall parliament for a special sitting to intoduce retrospective mandatory life imprisonment.
Posted in Terrorism laws |
July 14th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
If he’s been charged on the basis of a vague email to a colleague and giving a sim card to a family member two years ago, then this is just beyond unbefuckinglievable.
July 14th, 2007 at 3:26 pm
Neilson poll bounce is the last chance for Kar Kar CRodent…
July 14th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
Ken,
I read the first part of you post knowing the charge that was made this morning, and yes, the first part still stands.
And you are correct, the charge that has be laid nakes it even more ridiculous and infuriating… as my parter said this morning, does that mean that giving money to a bus driver who later turns out to be a terrorist means that we too are being ‘reckless” and can be locked up!
July 14th, 2007 at 4:08 pm
Fuck knows where that leaves slipping $100 million to Saddam by
John HowardAlexander DownerMark Vaillethe AWB to buy bangy-bangy things, JoniJuly 14th, 2007 at 4:25 pm
I think the Dr’s. wife has just had a baby too, might be why he was rushing back.
I’m sure the govt. can manage to keep this going until the election.
Is giving a family member a sim card a crime?
I’m guilty then, I’ve given to one of my kids.
How do you make the jump from giving your old sim card away, to aiding and abetting terrorists? Shouldn’t there be more proof of conspiracy required than that? How safe would any of us be from the same charge?.
Next will come the gaoling of APEC protesters under the terror laws - oh no! the sim card, I’d better make sure none of my family protest!
I’m also sure that JWH has something planned to give himself a poll leg up in that event.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:28 pm
Christine,
That is clearly not a problem. What’s a few hundred mill. between friends.
Sim cards of mass destruction however…..
If I lose my wallet and a terrorist picks it up and uses my c-c, will I be guilty of recklessly providing resources to a terrorist group?
This is beyond stupid. Take it to a jury…….please!!
July 14th, 2007 at 4:32 pm
Well, I’m fucked then. My brother gave me a whole mobile phone.
Excellent post, Ken.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Not a matter of intent, but of recklessly giving a SIM card to someone else? WTF?! I’m supposed to find out all future intentions of anyone I give anything to now, in case I recklessly help them and later they do something bad.
This is getting to be awfully close to thought crimes. What’s next - failing to think sufficiently hostile thoughts about family members and/or acquaintances who subsequently commit crimes?
Furthermore, wasn’t the alleged act committed in the UK? Are we now claiming jurisdiction worldwide for something done before a person entered the country?
We’re creeping along the road to fascism when they can pull bulls**t like this.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:47 pm
what is most striking about this post is, while all are outraged, none have any notion of doing something about it. beyond voting for the other mob of bandits, that is. as though they were any different.
in oz there’s not much you can do. the whole nation is ‘house-trained’, accepting that politics is for politicians.
it wouldn’t matter, except you persist in using the word ‘democracy’, presumably out of shame.
July 14th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
Christine
What a great point!!!!
Let’s hope this question gets asked in the MSM!!!!!!!
July 14th, 2007 at 5:00 pm
Sounds like the police felt pressure to do something substantive and have alighted on a rubbery charge, with an element of ‘fishing’ about it.
A ‘recklessness’ charge should be confined to intentional acts naturally calculated to cause serious harm: eg driving at 100km + in a built up area. It fills a gap between mere negligence (not criminal) and mens rea guilt.
A meaningful charge would be ‘intentionally’ aiding a terrorist plot - where intent means intending to aid it or cause harm. Or, conspiring in the plot.
What doesn’t add up here is why anyone would give a sim card away if they thought it would be used in a terrorist incident, unless they intended to aid the harmful plot. Because every mobile phone user knows the sim card is personal and traceable. If the doctor was reckless, then he was reckless for his own sake and is innocent.
A second flaw in the legal logic is to assume that terrorists form corporate entities. If in a personal capacity, and at their request, I gave something to ‘the Nazi party’ or ‘the KKK’ at its request then you might well say I’m guilty of providing material support.
But as this whole London cock-up shows, people involved in terrorism are just that: folk with crazy ideas/wishes and malevolent intent, who coalesce with that intent, but also lead v.mundane lives.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
An absolute disgrace Mr Ruddock - it might be best if you go now before the Australian people get really pissed off with you.
We turn a blind eye while the AWB bribe Saddam to the tune of $290 million. That looked like a terrorist act to me.
Now Haneef is detained and interrogated on suspicion of terrorist acts and is finally charged with “recklessly providing a SIM card”?
And the Libs wonder why they are up the creek in a barbed wire canoe - without a paddle.
Which planet are these clowns inhabiting for christ sake.
July 14th, 2007 at 5:30 pm
All good points above (and a well-written, lucid post Ken), but yer average Aussie joker will think the police know more than they can prove in a court of law, and so they’ve busted Haneef on a minor charge to get him off the streets. Opposing bail reinforces this.
Opposing bail also keeps Haneef handy while they dig up more dirt on him. The Mob will think they need more time to go for better evidence of a crime he will soon be seen as having surely committed. Expect “Where there’s smoke, there’s fire” to become the phrase du jour in the next few days.
And let’s not leave the media out of this. Now we have a genuine terrorist in our midst allied to a genuine, high-class act of terrorism in… London!… of all places. We’ve hit the big time. London is an important place, after all. This is world class law enforcement. Every third rate cub reporter (and a few old hacks too) will be dusting off their high dudgeon and sending their safari suits for dry cleaning, getting into “We are at War” mode.
No doubt the legislation under which Haneef has been charged will either include or come close to strict liability in establishing guilt, so we can expect him to go downthe river, whether he had intent to aid terrorism, knew vaguely that his mate was a bit of a nutter, or was just giving his card to someone as a favour because it still had some credit unused on it.
What will make or break this is
(a) whether the public believes Howard has caught himself a genuine terrorist;
(b) if so, whether they reward him for doing so because they think Rudd would have wimped-out (as they did Beazley after Tampa).
Some will subscribe to (a). Some will go further and subscribe to (b). Whether these will be rusted-ons (and thus just reinforce their voting intention) is another matter.
But like Ken and just about everybody else here, I really do think this stinks, whatever the outcome. I am encouraged by the way the public has reacted to the recent convictions of other home grown terrorists and the lot from Sydney who all went into the slammer last year: a big yawn. Cops were doing their job. Now can we get on with life (and voting Howard out)?
July 14th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
It will be interesting to find out in due course - if we ever do - whether what Haneef is alleged to have done would even constitute grounds for a charge in the UK, where the purported ‘terrorist organisation’ is supposed to have operated. Or are we resolutely in advance of the rest of the civilised world in our determination to stop the wave of terrorist acts sweeping our nation?
The only prudent course of action is obviously to have nothing whatsoever to do with anyone who looks remotely Islamic, cos god knows what they might be up to that you don’t know about. There’s an Indian doctor just down the road but for all I know he’s spending his fees on maps of the electricity grid so no more bulk-billed visits to him, no sirree! Buggered if I want to get involved in a police investigation.
Any suggestion that this might have the effect of causing divisions in the Australian community will naturally be vigorously rejected by everyone in the Howard Government, with great shows of outrage that anyone could even suggest such a thing.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
alfred loomis
what is most striking about this post is, while all are outraged, none have any notion of doing something about it. beyond voting for the other mob of bandits, that is. as though they were any different.
Interestingly this was said a lot on the left in the US before the 2004 elections: the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of the corporations as the Republicans and your vote will only change the faces.
However, the administration of GW Bush has shown that ain’t so by a long way. There really is a difference between socially progressive parties and those who are part of the Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere of NeoConservative Thought.
Vote Labor.
July 14th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
If I recall correctly, under these new laws, if (say) my mother is taken in to assist police with their questions, she can’t let me know that that is where she is. And if I somehow manage to guess that’s where she is, I can’t say anything to the media anbout it, on pain of possible imprisonment.
So I agree, how come Mr Ruddock can say what he likes, when he likes?
As for the crime, if the man was about to leave England for Australia, and there were still some (prepaid) calls on the card, why not give it to someone else?
Why, they might even find that he has also given away postage stamps, food, washing powder and even - most worryingly of all - his library card.
This is a man who deserves to go away for a very long time. Maybe, as Christine says, as long as the people who gave Saddam $300 million.
July 14th, 2007 at 7:04 pm
Oh dear, I gave my neighbour a prepaid sim plus phone for xmas last year, ’cause she was very ill and I wanted her to be in touch, just in case.
She also buys chemicals for weed control and soil improvement , includes nitrogen, diesel etc.
So, if I don’t have a remark to make for “quite some time” , could someone drop around and feed the dogs?.
(I may be wrong, didn’t some people give mobile phones to asylum seekers locked up in Australian detention centers?, so will they, the givers, be rounded up as supporting ‘boaties’.)and also , while I’m no world traveler, if I was leaving Australia to live in Europe, would I not give my mobile phone to someone before I left, as it would be useless in Europe?.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Good point about where it leaves Dolly and Vaile over AWB.
Might be interesting if the Reith Phone Card episode had popped up now, too.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
There is no ‘left’ in Australia anymore, just the ‘right’ and the loonyright. Time to resurrect the democrats before it’s too late.
July 14th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
Incredible.
Doing what most of us would do when leaving a country = 15 - 25 years.
Treasonable offense originating from current Whitehouse staff = All in the past.
The war on terror? I’m more scared of the politics from the supposed “good guys” than getting killed by some fanatic with a vest.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
Geez Lang Mack.
We could share the same cell.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:21 pm
I gave a Virgin SIM card with Ł11 left on it to a workmate in the UK when I was leaving to go back to Oz. He was a South African (and a nice guy) but I really didn’t know him that well.
Because he was moving to Australia Haneef gave a SIM card to a second cousin, and he had lived with his cousin for 2 years so you’d think he would have a little knowledge of him. Proves you never truly know anyone.
Proves what an ass this catch all wide scoping law invented by the Bush administration is. It is so broad in its scope that anybody with no exceptions can be charged and convicted under it if the government of the day so wishes. Which is the whole idea of the law.
July 14th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
Ck
Don’t forget the Chief Dot Joiner: He actually ‘coached’ the AWB to dummy the yanks…& where was the great Donation Detective then?
Bring back hanging Ken I say…
WTF will happen when Neilsen comes out circa 58 42?
As Possum says: Margin of Terror!
July 14th, 2007 at 10:05 pm
zebb: on the news tonight- kevvie 4square behind the government’s terrorism policies. are you blind, captive, or one of those hoping to profit when he gets in?
July 14th, 2007 at 11:08 pm
The minute i heard this news i wanted to scream out loud about the stinking aussies and their nonsensical laws. I see there are people in your country who seem to have sense and who seem to want justice done. I am an Indian and proud to be one. If Haneef is a terrorist then your government is free to do what it wants with him. But these charges are so sick, they make me want to puke. This man is definitely innocent — and the bastards are trying to pin him down on the most nonsensical of charges. Does your country have any kind of legal system or is it a banana republic. I do hope somebody out there has the guts to stand up and tell those idiots where they can get off. Please, so we can believe again that Australia and Australians believe in true justice.
July 14th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
A reputation ruined, a career probably destroyed, in this part of the world, anyway.
A Sim Card?
I hope I have never met a terrorist, just in case.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:29 am
From my recent experience in Australian politics I am with alfred on this one. Libs or Labs, same dog, different head.
Labor might be socially slightly more progressive, thanx to it’s base being mainly in the lower income brackets, but any differences in opinion stop when it is not about health, education or IR. When it comes to ideas on foreign policy, say in relation to Iraq or China, or the treatment of refugees, or uranium mining, or as demonstrated clearly yet again by Dr Haneef’s case, in matters of civil rights and support for draconian measures, almost identical to the Libs. Beasly was as much a militarist as Howard, embracing in a similar fashion the US alliance. Latham I thought had a bit more guts, but even he folded.
Back in 01/02 I was working for an Aboriginal radio station in the Top End and I remember interviewing Northern Territory Labor MP Warren Snowdon just after the Afghanistan invasion started, which the Labor party was fully supportive of. I asked him how he and his party could agree to a military operation which up until then (5 years ago) had already cost 6′000 civilian lives, twice the number of 9/11 victims. His reply along the lines of “Sorry mate, but you don’t understand these things, next question.” So I asked how it was alright for him as a labor man to be at ease with and defend the use of cluster bombs in populated areas. His answer: not a word, he got up and walked out of the interview room. Just what I would expect of a Ruddock or Downer.
_____________________
Interestingly this was said a lot on the left in the US before the 2004 elections: the Democrats are just as much in the pocket of the corporations as the Republicans and your vote will only change the faces….However, the administration of GW Bush has shown that ain’t so by a long way. There really is a difference between socially progressive parties and those who are part of the Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere of NeoConservative Thought…..Vote Labor
_________________________
I used to think the same way zebbidies, Labor being the “lesser of two evils”. But really all we do by entertaining this philosophy is making sure we are governed by people who are also “evil”, to use the phrase. Maybe less, but still. We have to judge candidates not by their party book but by their policies, and just because someone calls himself a US Democrat, does not mean he concerns himself with the needs, wellbeing, and interests of ordinary people outside the election period.
I wish it would be different, but if I look at Obama or Hillary, then I don’t see Democrats. I see opportunists who carry the neo-con flag simply in the left hand. Hillary voted for the invasion of Iraq just like most of the rest of the Democrats. And this from an Obama speech where he talks about “rogue nations,” “hostile dictators,” “muscular alliances” and maintaining “a strong nuclear deterrent.” He talks about how the US needs to “seize” the “American moment.”
Obama wants a bigger Army although he claims he wants to pull out of Iraq. The U.S. he says has to have enough military power to fight two wars and defend the “homeland”. Wars against whom and why?
“No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened.”
O tone Barrack Obama
“Imminently threatened vital interests,” what might those be? Who will define those? Is this a left-liberal foreign policy? How much progress did we get to see in Palestine under Clinton if all but none, instead we got the bombing of a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan, his Sec State Madeline Albrights with her 1996 remark that 500′000 dead Iraqi victims from US sanctions were worth the price. Democrats were as responsible for the escalation of the Vietnam war as the GOP. Sometimes I get the feeling they are merely wolfs in sheeps fur.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:55 am
I think the maximum sentence might be 15 years Ken, rather than 25. I was just going off the initial media report. Either way, it’s rather a lot.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Don’t lose it people.
Focus. Quietly.
Research.
Think…why…Doctors?…THE DR.?…:)
Think…MESSAGE…
Think…Entrapment.
Every time…every time thay are caught out.
They plead…GOOD GUYS…”just doin’ my job!”
“All about…ENTRAPMENT!”
They think, BELIEVE…they can’t lose…but
THEY are the ROOT…of ALL…EVIL.
Journey…to the NUCLEAS…of AL-QAEDA.
and YOU will find the answer.
ENTRAPMENT!
Think of a recent movie by Martin Scorscese…
w/ the song
‘Comfortably Numb’.
N’
NP: Workhouse: End of the Pier (listen…research…and you will see the LIGHT…as your TIME…DILATES)
July 15th, 2007 at 3:44 am
Careful folks, all you people out there could be charged for recklessly supporting a person charged with recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:40 am
Juan Moment
You are quite right that the Labor party is not a party of the left, but if you go down the road of being too cynical about them you end up putting no pressure on the Labor party to stop moving to the right. Not to mention what a rampant Liberal party would do.
Do you really believe that a Labor government would have enacted the really extreme bits of legislation that the current mob have?
Labor enacted mandatory detention for illegal immigrants. The Liberals put asylum seekers in concentration camps in another country.
Labor kept close ties to the US power elite. The Liberals gave us the FTA.
Labor tried to keep the more militant unions under restraint. The Liberals use the power of the State to actively assist private companies to break unions on their sites.
There really is a difference.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:44 am
You are quite right that the Labor party is not a party of the left,…
And therefore I wouldn’t vote for it. Better vote Green or Democrat. Due to preference deals the primary vote will end up with Labor anyway, but at least in the Senate you got a party representing you that is left of centre.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:50 pm
Maybe by “reckless” they mean the pointy corners of the sim card may have had someones eye out.
July 15th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
Sounds like a piss-weak case against the guy to me.
If giving a sim card to someone is going to constitute the offence of recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation (without any evidence that the donor knew that the recipient was going to use it to, say, build and trigger a bomb), there’s going to be a lot of mobile phone retailers out there quaking in their boots.
After all, they’re out there selling the things to terrorists. And they’re doing so recklessly too: Ever heard a mobile phone salesman ask a potential customer what he wanted to buy the phone for?
Hell, there are going to be Telcos potentially up for criminal charges too.
This follows because they indiscriminately provide access to the phone network, which as we all know, can be used by terrorists to communicate with each other and to trigger bombs.
The retailers and Telcos, on the prosecution’s logic, are “recklessly supporting” terrorism in each case. Indeed, they’re more reprehensible than Dr Haneef (who merely gave a phone to a relative) because they’re providing this reckless support to make a buck out of it.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:19 pm
‘This ridiculous charge reeks of a government giving instructions that Dr Haneef was to be charged with something – anything – to avoid making the detention look stupid.’ Right on the money Ken. Of course the Government would vigorously deny interfering in the operations of a law enforcement agency. Don’t believe a word of it.
Remember a few years ago when Keelty misread is talking points about how our involvement in the GWOT would make us safer from terrorism? And how he got a re-education session from Sinodinos as a result? And how many times has he stepped out of line since?
Of course there was political interference in the decision to charge Haneef with this ridiculous offence. And while we’re at it, don’t believe there was no political interference in the decision to slap the control order on Jack Thomas, either.
The extent of the corruption of public institutions under this Government is one of the great stories waiting to be told by future Andrew Wilkies, once this disgusting mob are consigned to the dustbin of history.
July 15th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Evan
What is worse is that according to the charge it is not that the SIM card was going to be used to trigger a bomb, but that the SIM was used to disguise the identity of the person using the phone. That is what the reckless “providing support to a terrorist organisation” charge is.
As pointed out elsewhere and which I’ve done myself in the UK, anyone can get a completely anonymous pre-charged SIM card over a counter and recharge it at a supermarket checkout without ID checks or forms to fill out, though if it is only going to be used once then there is no need for the recharge.
That makes this whole thing against Haneef ludicrous in the extreme, and its still not over with new news that evidence had been gathered from a raid on a house in WA. According to the news report 500 police have been used in the exercise, make of that what you will but seems strange to me that such a short staffed and under-resourced organisation can provide such a large body of police on this one thing.
July 15th, 2007 at 2:17 pm
He isn’t aware, then catalogs details? Is he schizophrenic or just lying?
Sunday July 15, 11:00 AM
“I’m not specifically aware of the nature of the investigations and nor should I be,” Mr Ruddock said.
“But what I can say is the Australian Federal Police have worked assiduously in relation to issues arising from the linkages with the UK bombings, and have put enormous amount of resources and time and effort into very professionally examining any possible links with Australia.”
Meanwhile, Mr Ruddock defended the government’s anti-terrorism legislation that kept Haneef in detention for 12 days without charge.
He said the police investigation had begun only when the AFP received information about a possible Australian link to the UK attacks.”
July 15th, 2007 at 3:06 pm
Be afraid if you have taken a call from anybody who is in possession of a SIM card that has anything to do with anybody who may have known somebody, who may be involved in this whole saga. Very scary. Where will it stop. Where do our rights start and stop.
July 15th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
no political party will save you from rule by a political party. if you wont save yourself, you wont be saved. fortunately, if you keep your head down and don’t remark when someone disappears into ‘unperson/down time’, you will survive. for a while. that’s all you deserve.
or you could withdraw legitimacy from political parties by refusing to vote for them. if enough do, eventually you’ll get democracy and can worry about secondary problems, such as global warming.
weimar germany gave a clear example of what happens when everyone keeps their head down and ‘expects’ the politicians to behave like your favorite aunt. they aren’t anyone’s favorite aunt.
July 15th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Six degrees of separation. We can expect the arrest of Kevin Bacon any moment.
If I wasn’t convinced Ruddock is a walking corpse I’d wonder how he manages to keep a straight face over this.
What the British media will do with it is anyone’s guess, but given the way they treated the recent poor effort at an attack, it wouldn’t be surprising if they laughed Australia out of the empire.
July 15th, 2007 at 6:10 pm
Do you think any of this would have happened
zebbidies, rf,
neither Labor nor the Democrats are the solution.
Not only have both sold us out many times before: voting with the gov on these anti terror and sedition legislations.
Just as importantly both the Dems and the ALP, have becoming very soft on AWAs, preferences to Family First, GST, HECS and forgetting about Australia wide free education as an entitlement in this times of the so called “knowledge society”.
The things that do work are getting off our arses and rolling our sleevees: GetUp!, the Refugees advocates campaigning and writing letters, creating a much wider movement among most Australian not just “pro-Labor”. That’s also what’s worked well elsewhere (like the USA, where you guys keep on looking towards).
I really hope the Dems are not oblieraed at this election, but realistically the only one with any hope is Bartlett in Qld, and it’s no certainty at all.
I wished we really had a “Worker’s Party” like the ALP was meant to be about 100yrs ago, but that’s not gonna happen anytime soon. So, vote for the independents, progressives and greens in your electorates to send that message, then by all means do put the ALP 3rd or 4th and way before the coalition.
But this is only a band-aid. The key is to get off our arses on an ongoing basis and let’s blog at the Oz, let’s provide ongoing strong feedback and strongly criticise the gov and their cheering squads. But most importantly of all: roll your sleeves, get in touch with your local Amnesty chapters, donate to GetUp! and other NGOs that really get involved in practical matters, not just “lobbying”.
July 15th, 2007 at 7:55 pm
It seems that we have some people supporting the Libs in here, why else are they trying to stop us giving our primary vote to the ALP. Lets give the message to the Parties by giving the biggest ‘boot out’ of any government in Australia’s history, then we can protest to our hearts content and join places like getup. Then we can get right up the ALP when they are in government, but get them there first.
A primary vote, not for the ALP, is a vote for the Coalition. Keep that primary vote for the ALP as high as is possible.
July 15th, 2007 at 9:53 pm
The 4th Estate isn’t exactly covering itself in glory with it’s defence of liberty and scrutiny of power.
This is the latest from the ABC on the Haneef case.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/15/1978953.htm
First we get a quote from Howard, then Downer, and for a different perspective on the possibility of stronger(!!) anti-terror laws, we hear from the walking corpse, Phillip Ruddock.
Nice work ABC.
July 15th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
Muskiemp, you provide no reasons or arguments. There is still a (somewhat) democratic system to actually vote for whoever we want, and use the preferential vote to full effectiveness by putting a dodgy ALP second or third.
Are you telling me this farce with Dr Haneef would not happen under the ALP? Rudd’s reaction so far has been p*ss weak!
Until you give us a decent reason, same goes for you!
July 15th, 2007 at 11:06 pm
Do we think the same thing would have happened to Dr Haneef if he was a Christian? Or Blonde? or a pom named Smith?
This is just as disgusting as the attitude of the immigration Dept. to refugees or Australians who did not speak English as a first language. And the media just goes along with it! And the ALP just goes along with it!
Seeing Iemma and hoWARd on tonight’s news spruiking their anti-terror hype for APEC was stomach churning. Only bit missing was tehm holding hands!
Actually reminded me of Blair and Bush: Different smell, still the same SH*IT!
July 16th, 2007 at 12:18 am
Ruddock. Has anyone ever uttered ‘appropriate’ so often, and so inappropriately?
July 16th, 2007 at 1:48 am
Holy crap, that’s ridiculous. I mean, I’ve given sim cards to friends before without ever thinking about it.
Crap, the police are at my door. Gotta go….
July 16th, 2007 at 8:49 am
58 42 heh…Reckless R & R on a stick…
July 16th, 2007 at 1:00 pm
From Mirriam-Webster via Dictionary.com
reckless: characterized by the creation of a substantial and unjustifiable risk to the lives, safety, or rights of others and by a conscious and sometimes wanton and willful disregard for or indifference to that risk that is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in like circumstances
Which begs the question: what is the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in dealings with another person, to ensure that person is not a terrorist? Perhaps ‘How do you do? Are you now, have you ever been, or might you at some point become, a person linked to a terrorist organisation? No? In that case, I’ll have that copy of the Big Issue, thanks.’
July 16th, 2007 at 3:01 pm
Cross-posted from Blogocracy.
(Can’t seem to turn this into a link right now.)
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/haneefs-visa-cancelled/2007/07/16/1184438190629.html
Haneef’s Visa Cancelled
Precious little in the article about what that means or why it was done. I’m presuming (until more details come to light) it’s his Australian work visa.
Seems a little pre-emptive (and perhaps even vindictive) to me though - no charge has been proven yet, so why cancel it? And if it is his work visa, that makes his life even harder, doesn’t it. Can’t leave the country, can’t work for a living in the country.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:09 pm
Another crosspost.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/haneefs-detained-after-bail-win/2007/07/16/1184438190629.html locked up in immigration detention[/url]
Updated version of the article includes this:
[quote]Following the cancellation of his visa, Haneef will be held in immigration detention in Brisbane pending the hearing of his charges.[/quote]
At first glance this looks like vindictive bastardry. “We’re going to lock him up regardless of the decision of the magistrate.” So much for rule of law…we have government ministers unilaterally deciding it’s in the national interest instead. Give it a few more years and a few more terrorist scares and they’ll decide they don’t need to bother with the magistrates at all. Far more efficient just to let the minister decide guilt or innocence.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Updated version of the article (at same URL) says this:
Bit of unilateral vindictive bastardry from Kevin Andrews, I reckon. We don’t need no stinkin’ magistrates when they don’t make the “right” decision - we’re the government and we decide who should be locked up.
Combine it with this:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/we-want-endless-detention-say-police/2007/07/15/1184438148985.html
UK police want endless detention
and it starts to look like another step on the road to totalitarianism.
July 16th, 2007 at 3:21 pm
Even more details now appearing at that URL on the visa cancellation.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:01 pm
So Carlos, your telling us how to vote and use the preferential voting system, but I say use the primary vote wisely and that makes me wrong.
July 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
Speaking of Phillip Ruddocks stuff ups. What about Daniel Snedden, the Australian Serb who is being extradited to face a Croatian court on a no-evidence basis? If it was the UK requesting Daniels extradition then an evidence case is mandatory. The AFP could not arrest Dr Haneef until the sim card was found. Daniel has been detained for over a year and a half without charges and without evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captain_Dragan
July 16th, 2007 at 4:42 pm
This issue is really quite upsetting. With all their actions the Government is making this man look guilty (’he was leaving the country in a hurry’ (paraphrase Ruddock), detain ‘for association with criminals’ (para Andrews), ‘laws are working fine’ (para Howard), even though he has not been found guilty of anything.
While this may not be a Tampa with the same effect on the election as 04, Labor’s behaviour is eerily similar: they have not said a word against Gov on this. Making this even more upsetting.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:32 pm
No Muskiemp, you are just not providing any reasons to change my mind and vote for the ALP in my first preference.
Just like Bungs in #55 said: Labor’s behaviour is the problem here.
The latest developments on Dr Haneef’s case are simply unbelievable: after almost 2 weeks in the lockup now he gets permanent detention, and he will be kicked out of Oz, even if found innocent. And that a progressive Labor party remains totally silent on the issue is a shameful cope-out.
That’s why the ALP will NOT be getting my first preference. They will be way before the coalition, but there’s no way they deserve a strong endorsement when they are so piss weak!
The whole Australian people are ready to dump the hoWARd bastards and all that Rudd can do is pussyfoot around the big issues, perhaps understandably.
The ALP needs someone else, another Faulkner say, to come in hard and tell it like it is! A bit of good cop, bad cop if you like. Nice and safe strategy at arms’ length from Rudd, but balancing and inspiring for everyone!
Remind us why we should vote for you!
Plus when the attack dogs come out with the negative personal campaigning against Rudd, cos they are desperate and they will! - it might just be valuable to have a willing and ready counter-attack. Think about it!
July 16th, 2007 at 5:42 pm
Pathetic as Rudd’s response has been to this I think it’s important for him to stay right away from anything that looks like a Howard set-up. And this is one.
“Look folks, we got oursels a real live terris”. That Haneef seems to be no such thing doesn’t bother them one bit.
What’s Howard more concerned about right now, terrorism or the election? Everything he and his sac of disreputable nuts do has to be seen in light of the election. So far he’s screwed up everything he’s tried all by himself, and Rudd’s had the sense to stay out of it and let him self destruct.
That’s not to say Rudd wouldn’t do things differently if he was in the big chair, just that getting sucked into Howard’s games is not great strategy.
Better to hope that Rudd turns out to be a human being than burn him for not getting caught up in a Howard-invented fantasy.
July 16th, 2007 at 5:56 pm
Lyn #57
i’d probably agree that is Rudd’s strategy, but it would be good if people in leadership positions stood up and spoke up against this Kafka-esque farce. That would mean not just the usual suspects of civil liberties groups, greens, democrats etc
July 16th, 2007 at 6:50 pm
Gosh!!!
Being a brown atheist… I would never visit australia… am scared of getting charged for being brown ahhem recklessly being brown.
hail white supremacy
hail howard
July 16th, 2007 at 6:52 pm
Last but not the least
hail aussie police state…:)
July 16th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Now it’s beyond a farce.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:29 pm
Sure, Lyn. But please the Libs only get away with this kid of crap because The ALP lets them!
I could not believe, for example, Mundine’s reaction to the farcical Aboriginal emergency: I think it was on a tv interview, that you could tell he was going thru all his speaking points and yet he was actually spewing about the army going in and the Feds taking over the land titles.
Nonetheless, he bit his tongue and still said and did nothing. OK, good focused discipline a few times is great in the heat of battle. But not forever!
What’s more pathetic is that - as the polling eventually showed - they could have backed the emergency but still be more openly skeptical of hoWARd’s motivations. Maybe even score a few good political points! Instead the ALP was way behind most of the Australian electorate on this one.
Same goes for the Iraq invasion, Guantanamo and Hicks and Habib, global warming, etc.
The absolutely pathetic thing is their retreat on AWAs and IR!!! and this from a LABOR party?!!!
PITIFUL PATHETIC DIAHRREA!
And we are supposed to just do as told, quietly just ticking the right box and put our faith in the ALP? Yep, close your eyes little sheep, hold your nose and just swallow…
So where is Carmen Lawrence, or Peter Garret or Faulkner? Anyone?! Is there not ONE ALP voice that can show a bit of skepticism and convincingly convey it to attack the government?
That is called total lack of leadership. And meanwhile the farce continues and real people’s lives are ruined, like Dr Haneef and his family!
July 16th, 2007 at 7:32 pm
Heil John Howard and his henchman Kevin Andrews for being ABOVE the law! Bravo to the ALP for once again showing how gutless they are when it comes to BASIC HUMAN RIGHTS. I was dumbfounded at the weak roll over response from Tony Burke that has typified the present day labor party. Paul Keating has got it totally right with his observations of both sides of our political spectrum. When will the ALP realise we are looking for a change not more of the same that we have endured for the past 11 years.
July 16th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Bungs @ 58:
That’s what I’m looking for too. There’s no leadership in politics anymore. Mob rule driven by media hysteria is the best we can expect to see until a real leader steps up and says, “This can not stand.”
Not in my life time, I expect.
July 16th, 2007 at 9:15 pm
Yep, the false prophets have taken over this thread,
July 16th, 2007 at 9:17 pm
I’ll now leave this thread to ‘em
July 16th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
Muskiemp, Carlos has given some pretty good reasons as to why the ALP doesn’t deserve our primary vote. What exactly is wrong with supporting a more democratic, left-of-centre party than the ALP with one’s primary vote?
If anything, more primary votes to the likes of the Greens and other left-wing parties in the lower house will only exert influence on the ALP to be more true to its roots.
The only false prophets are the ALP.
July 16th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Muskiemp, just like johnny hoWARd take your ball and bat and go home, since those nasty punters are being so mean by not voting for you… bwaaaa bwaaaaaaaaa! PISS WEAK!
All I actually tried to do was ask you for some decent reasons, back in #44:
July 16th, 2007 at 10:57 pm
Andrews was woeful on the 7:30 Report, more or less confirming they had nothing on Haneef but what we already know. O\’Brien kept asking him whether there was any criminal association with terrorists, and Andrews kept on responding that there was \’an association\’. Clearly the main game here is to keep the good doctor away from media coverage that might establish in the electorate\’s mind the fact he\’s a human being rather than the monster of tabloid imaginings…
July 16th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Howard on Haneef on Saturday:
Obviously what he meant to add was “until such time as Mr Andrews has had the chance to assess his character.”
July 17th, 2007 at 12:35 am
This is exactly right, and it ties in to the PR strategy “the right” in the US has been using for many years to swing the pundits and to some extent public opinion their way. It’s called the Overton Window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window).
They use it to make previously unacceptable ideas mainstream. The Left should be using similar principles - someone at a distance from the leader putting out points of view that the leader can’t espouse because of predictable smears in response, but that can be used to bring those points of view into consideration and discussion.
July 17th, 2007 at 11:31 am
B*ll*ocks!
Right now, what the ALP needs is to be elected. We can sort out the rest of this afterwards.
Or would you like another 11 years of this bunch of spivs and shysters because your integrity was so bl**dy important?
Yes, I’ve been disappointed with the ALP on many, many occasions. But, let’s face it, they are a better (indeed, only realistic) alternative to this current mob. Principles are great but let’s focus on what’s immediately achievable.
If it’s that important to you, by all means vote Green (or whatever) in the Senate where they’ve actually got a hope of having some influence.
Sometimes I despair of the “Left”. The “Peoples Popular Front of Judea” crap was hilarious in Life of Brian. It’s a lot less funny when it condemns the rest of us to rule by the likes of Thatcher and Howard.
July 17th, 2007 at 3:20 pm
I read somewhere that Dr Haneef\’s wife (and possibly other family members) were considering coming to visit him: they probably could not get a visa anyway, but even if they did (adminstrative errors are not unknown at DIaC), they might want to reconsider?
July 17th, 2007 at 4:09 pm
Intellectual Bogan indeed!
If we get another hoWARd term it will only be because of the ALP!
We all know there’s another few nasty wedges coming. Some really nasty personal attacks on Rudd and maybe a huge terror scare during APEC. We need to have a good couple of head kickers who can be put in their place by Rudd when they step out of line, showing he’s the leader, calls the shoots, etc.
But you need that defense ready. NOW! Before things get really nasty ‘cos they will.
I know you’re a bogan but can you really be such a sheep? C’mon we all know the ALP right is shit scared of Guillard and Garret, but this is exactly what we had with Beazley and it was shit!
Can the ALP really be that piss weak?
July 17th, 2007 at 5:48 pm
Piss weak or not, the ALP are in with their best chance in 11 years of winning the next Federal election. Success depends on not dropping the ball and, crucially, not scaring Wayne and Sharon Battler too much because, like it or not, it’s their votes that are going to count, not yours or mine.
Yes, the whole Haneef business stinks to high heaven, including the ALP response.
But, when it comes right down to it, risking the opportunity to roll Howard and co. for this one case wouldn’t be rational, because nothing worthwhile is going to be achieved from the Opposition benches regardless of holding the moral high ground. Particularly so if Howard and Co continue to hold the Senate.
If you can afford to risk having Howard in power for a moment longer, just for the sake of shafting the ALP, good for you, do what you want.
Me, I can’t so I’ll take what I can get. If that means the ALP in it’s current form, then so be it. I’ll worry about their inadequacies AFTER they’ve beaten the Coalition.
I want to see King John make the concession speech on election night.
Then I’ll get stuck into the ALP. Because they’d better deliver.
October 15th, 2007 at 5:28 pm
Unfortunately, Haneef’s case is not a single example of proceeding with criminal charges without sufficient evidence. In Queensland, Vincent Berg’s and some other cases are not less alarming. It seems that the rule of law and respect to legal evidence and individual human rights are in danger of being replaced by “witch hunt” practices.
December 25th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
I believe it is still not safe for Dr. Haneef and his family to stay in Australia and in Queensland in particular. His case has not been a single mistake and overreaction, but one of manifestations of a broader and deeper problem.
Unfortunately, Dr. Haneef is not the only person, who was charged in Australia without sufficient evidence. In Queensland, Vincent Berg’s and some other cases are not less alarming. It seems that the rule of law based on legal evidence and individual human rights is in danger of being replaced by “witch hunt” practices. This alarming problem must be addressed in principle and every such case revised against legal evidence.