Haneef vs the Commonwealth
The beat-up of the week must go to Brisbane’s Courier Mail with an article on the front page claiming Moslems in Queensland are sleeping overnight in mosques as they are “gripped by fear and anger over what they claim is racist and unjust treatment of terror suspect Mahomed Haneef”
Wow, amazing. Not the doubtful fact that they are “gripped by fear” but the fact that journalist Tanya Chilcott says so.
The case is moving away from the guilt or not of Haneef and has swung clearly towards inflicting the most damage the players and journalists can on the government. Agendas are flying quicker than cliches at a writers conference.
Haneef’s lawyer, Stephen Keim, SC, yesterday defended his decision to leak the the transcripts of the interviews between Haneef and the AFP, insisting he had not broken the law.
“If they feel I have committed any offence or done any wrong, they know where I am – let them take action against me,” he told the Seven Network. “What I have done is perfectly legal, perfectly ethical.”
and perfectly politically motivated. Not being legally qualified I have no comment on the legality of his actions other than in my opinion I think they are a bit doubtful.
Stephen Keim is also an ex President of Queensland Council for Civil Liberties, he is, or was, a paid up member of the ALP and has a track record of speaking out against the establishment, particularly when it’s a conservative establishment
Just for once I like one of these accused terrorists or supporters to be defended by a lawyer whose sole motivation is the defence of his client.
And pigs might fly.
Chris Merritt in the Australian argues that authorities are over reacting to the leaking of the documents;
It matters not at all that Keim, like all leakers, had a barrow to push. What matters is the veracity of the information he has placed on the public record.
It does matter that he has a barrow to push – it taints his motives. Which barrow is he pushing? His clients or his own? I watched him on TV last night and deduced he was more into civil liberties than responsibilities and that he considered he was striking a blow for these liberties in attacking a government that had the temerity to charge suspected terrorists or supporters with charges under the new anti-terrorist laws.
The leaked documents record the interviews between Haneef and the AFP only. They do not relate what the AFP have been told by their British counterparts and what they know from their own intelligence.
This AFP intelligence may amount to not much at all but but it might be significant; whatever the case, time alone will tell.
The litany of agendas and opinions rolled out by the media means little at the moment
Both Sheridan and Steketee are predictable in their responses. Sheridan writes about everyone being outraged at the length of incarceration;
Imagine if the authorities had someone in custody who was genuinely a terrorist and the terror plot was in the 36,000th piece of encrypted information on his computer. And imagine if they released this terrorist after getting through 10,000 such pieces of information and a terrorist outrage occurred that they could have prevented.
Every citizen would be outraged at such fecklessness.
Reasonable point. We need to accept that this is the case. The AFP work overtime trying to sort through confiscated computers knowing full well that the internet is the chosen means of communication for the terrorists. Miss and encrypted email and people die.
The case against Mohamed Haneef, based on guilt by association, points to a slippery slope, says Mike Steketee
The entire terrorist concept is a slippery slope and I for one accept that the rights we defend are at risk. They are put at risk by the terrorists not us and while the authorities only apply the anti-terrorist laws to people suspected of being terrorists or on the periphery of such organizations then I’m not alarmed.
What is wrong with “guilt by association” if it’s tested in court and proven? It’s been around for hundreds of years and generally referred to as “Consorting with Criminals” If you lay down with dogs you get fleas…if you consort with criminals you are most probably heading that way and if you associate with people who blow up innocent citizens then there is a case to answer.
I’d rather the authorities spend their energies guaranteeing my right, and those of my fellow citizens, to live without being subject to suicidal killers, before any other rights.
