Haneef has booked a room at Villawood
THE Howard Government has used immigration laws to keep Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef behind bars.
Seems reasonable to me and this is backed up by the fact that the decision prompted outrage from Dr Haneef’s lawyers, many in the legal fraternity, the Greens and the Australian Democrats.
Dr Haneefs lawyers have a responsibility to be outraged; their task, after all, is to get him off charges and free and they are paid to do this. The others of course have an ideological base to their outrage and are only reacting as programmed.
The rest of us should be happy; that while doubt exists as to the involvement of Dr Haneef in the latest attempts by radical Moslems to murder infidels in Brittain; he is not free to wreak havoc or escape on a false passport given to him by supporters from a mosque somewhere near Lakemba.
The passing on of a still valid sim card is, on the face of it, not usually considered as a crime, however to do so and have that card turn up in a vehicle that was intended to murder infidels in Scotland is cause for concern.
The Australian claims online communication between Dr Haneef and the bomb plotters was prolific and that authorities have gathered significantly more evidence against him than has been disclosed publicly.
This includes evidence that Dr Haneef’s attempt two weeks ago to leave Australia for India on a one-way ticket after the terror attacks in Britain was not linked to family issues, as his relatives have claimed. Authorities believe Dr Haneef knew of the British plot, but have yet to determine whether he played an active part.At the very least, whatever happens in the coming trial, after it’s all over and he has done his time, if indeed that is the result, then I would expect my Government to send him back to India – just in case. Melbourne barrister and former National Crime Commission chief Peter Faris QC gave Mr Andrews’ decision his full support.
“The truth is, we don’t want anyone here, coming into this country, who we suspect is a terrorist. That’s different to saying we can prove they’ve committed terrorist offences,” he said.Faris QC is a conservative type of chap and believes in maintenance of the system, not in bringing it down as many of his cohorts try to do. The Magistrate in this case, Jacqui Payne, has an anti-police track record and whereas I wouldn’t have accepted the surrendered passport as proof-positive that Haneef wouldn’t fly the coop, she has and I’m sure it’s a legally supported stand. It’s just not a smart stand A side issue…. Haneef is here on what is known as a 457 visa and I note there are at least 4000 foreign doctors working in Queensland, most after being granted 457 visas. 4000! What on earth is going on Beattie?
Facebook
Twitter
No one wants terrorists, Kev, but consider the wider implications of the bullying tactics. The Government must allow justice to run its course. Police Commissioner Keelty has stated plainly that Haneef had no INTENT to aid a terrorist organisation, but was RECKLESS in providing the SIM card. Ask yourself the following questions:
1. Where are the limits drawn on what is considered “assisting a terrorist organisation”? Haneef gave his cousin his mobile phone; will police wish to investigate the man who recklessly gave one of the bombers a cigarette, for example, or directions to the toilet, or lent one of them $5 to buy lunch? You are surely aware that people who are in a foreign land are naturally inclined to stick together and help each other out. I worked with groups of Indians in a fast food chain during my student days, and know this type of thing to be common behaviour.
2. In what other situation is providing assistance in any form to a person who will (in the future and without prior disclosure) commit a crime be considered an offence? Why is “terrorism” a special case? For example, would the cousin of a soon-to-be murderer or thief be indicted for recklessly providing the future offender with a mobile phone? Probably not.
3. How can the provision of a SIM card/phone be reckless? Would the SIM card materially have aided the bomber-doctors’ plans? Would the bomber-doctors’ plans have been materially hindered had the SIM card/phone not been provided? It seems a ridiculously long bow to draw when they could surely have procured another phone or SIM with relative ease.
Sure, if he’s convicted, he should be deported. We have a pretty decent judicial system and the Government shouldn’t be allowed to use its power without due discretion and fairness. Siding with justice is most certainly not siding with terrorism.
Thanks,
Mandy
Mandy,
“Bullying tactics” is an emotive phrase when I would say they are using the law to safeguard our security.
“Reckless” is the operative word from the anti-terrorist laws as I understand them and I think you will find it more than just giving his mate a SIM card. You can imagine the scenario where his cousin says to him “You give me your SIM card because you will be out of the country and in no danger of being grabbed by the police”
SIM cards, and by extension, mobile phones are a well known detonating device used by the terrorists.
It smells.
However, in general I agree with your concerns but my point is I would rather have him held until we know for sure.
Your para 2 is only relevant subsequent to us knowing that he gave the SIM card in innocence. The police have suggested he has been in contact with his mates very recently, ie, during the latter planning stages of the operation.
There are still too many questions…time will tell
I don’t know about your para 3…maybe…maybe not but I think the point is there are suspicions and he is best secured while the AFP work it out
Kev
It appears that you may be backing the wrong horse again – this time Ruddock and Andrews.
After two weeks the only charge is that he has supported a terrorist; not intentionally by giving a SIM Card.
What a joke!
Good luck to his lawyers – they are doing a good job and thnak God that there are people willing to fight injustice and for the underdog. Time wil tell Kev – just like it has with Iraq etc remeber the C word of say 12 months ago etc etc
Keeping backing the wrong issues Kev – maybe one day you weill understand how the separation of powers and the rulke of law applies in practice. The rule of law law is there to protect everyone including accsued terrorists. if it idid not then we would have to take them out and shoot them.
How can the provision of a SIM card/phone be reckless? Would the SIM card materially have aided the bomber-doctors’ plans? Would the bomber-doctors’ plans have been materially hindered had the SIM card/phone not been provided? It seems a ridiculously long bow to draw when they could surely have procured another phone or SIM with relative ease.
It can be reckless because it is SO easy to get one yourself, the only reasons not to do so are to attempt to hinder an investigation.
The bombers clearly believed that their plans to not be as easily traceable would have been hindered if the card was not provided or they would have just bought one.
The relative ease of getting a SIM card is exactly the reason why it was reckless, there had to be a pretty dodgy reason why a Doctor, on a legit visa, couldn’t get his own SIM card in the UK.
Harry,
Agreed but their defence is everyone does it therefore why suggest my doing it is tainted.
Clearly because everyone doesn’t get involved with radical suicide bombers.
Then their argument is flawed. Just because lots of people speed doesn’t make it legal.
Harry,
I guess my point was made from the perspective that Haneef had no intent to aid terrorism (as stated by Keelty), and that as such, the most likely explanation is the actual one given by Haneef: that he left it with the cousin in order for him to benefit from the cheap calls.
What you are saying makes perfect sense from the bombers’ perspective, but not necessarily from Haneef’s.
I just find it hard to connect the dots with this charge because Haneef didn’t know the people he gave the phone to were terrorists and didn’t intend to aid terrorism. Without intent, without knowledge, yet still charged. Makes you worry about where justice is heading under this Government, that’s all. Justice is my primary concern, and it grieved me to see Andrews revoke Haneef’s visa. For the most part, I think the judicial system is trustworthy (ie, it will convict him if he is guilty), so I think the Government should have accepted the Magistrate’s judgement that Haneef was of sufficiently good character to be released on bail. The federal Ministers all said that Andrews made his decision independently, but Rudd’s announcement that he would support any measures the Government put in place to prevent people on terrorism charges being granted bail kinda indicated that he thought the Government’s actions where to ensure Haneef was locked up. Although, that is a bit subtle. Mr Rudd has been disappointingly silent on this whole matter.
Mandy
Haneef associates with terrorists, as such his Visa is legally liable to be pulled. it has been. what is it about implementing the law that you don’t like?
Accept the Magistrates view? are you kidding? they get it wrong on bail all the time – in a number of studies (UK, Tas, NZ) aprox 25% of people charged were already on bail for previous charges.
Given that the Magistrates have demonstrated such appalling judgement in who will be of good character in the past, why would you trust them now?
Harry,
Ummm, yes please! Seperation of powers is guaranteed by the Constitution, but absolutely trampled by Howard and his men. This case is clearly political , as even the Pommie cops are saying, and cases should not ever be political.
The reason the Haneef case is distressing many people, including the Premier of Queensland, is that the Government is overstepping its Constitutional powers, and that endangers everyone.
Perhaps another point is that locking up a Muslim in an unjust fashion is pretty well the thing that actually inspires terrorism.
Let’s just have natural justice, I think.
Mandy,
The government withdrawing Haneef’s visa is a totally separate legal issue from his court appearance. The separation of powers has been maintained. The magistrate bailed him on the charges laid by the police…his visa was withdrawn based on immigration laws – both separate issues. He has a known association with people who tried to murder innocent Brits. Until his name is cleared, if ever, the AFP have a responsibility to us citizens to pursue the matter until it is resolved and to ensure we are not placed in danger
Pommie cops saying it’s political. You must realize it is so easy for a determined press to get a cop to say it’s political. The fact that the media pursue someone to give them the answer to suit their agenda is political in itself.
And Beattie says it’s political! Well he would wouldn’t he! That’s his agenda..to try and politicize the case to the detriment of the government. That after all, is one of his roles in life.
There is no proof as yet that he has been locked up unjustly.
Kev covered the Immigration v Police charges, so I won’t bother touching on that, but I noticed Mandy that you don’t seem keen to point out why we should accept the Magistrates view that Haneef will be a good boy (given their demonstrated 25% failure rate at this).
You didn’t seem too keen on telling us what your problem is with implementing the law either? you either believe in rule of law or you don’t. at the moment it just looks like an increasingly shrill political attack on your part.
Also, the thing that inspires terrorism is Islamic religious imperialism – they’ve told us that often enough, why won’t you at least listen to them?