# Dr. Haneef Damages Claim



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

What quantum of damages should this cousin of an alleged terrorist be able to claim for his expeditious arrest and deportation from Australia when said cousin is alleged to have used his simcard, and partook in a terrorist act in the UK.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/23/2454095.htm?section=justin


I reckon $13,354

Any offers on this.

gg


----------



## BradK (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*

Are we under a cloud of suspicion for the things our distant cousins do now, gg? 

I say $$$ millions!! 

Brad


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



BradK said:


> Are we under a cloud of suspicion for the things our distant cousins do now, gg?
> 
> I say $$$ millions!!
> 
> Brad




Ok Brad, we're talkin dollars here, how much?

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> What quantum of damages should this cousin of an alleged terrorist be able to claim for his expeditious arrest and deportation from Australia when said cousin is alleged to have used his simcard, and partook in a terrorist act in the UK.
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/23/2454095.htm?section=justin
> ...








BradK said:


> Are we under a cloud of suspicion for the things our distant cousins do now, gg?
> 
> I say $$$ millions!!
> 
> Brad






Garpal Gumnut said:


> Ok Brad, we're talkin dollars here, how much?
> 
> gg




If someone gave me $13,354 for being banged up in the Brisbane Watchouse for a few days I'd be ecstatic.

gg


----------



## chops_a_must (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> If someone gave me $13,354 for being banged up in the Brisbane Watchouse for a few days I'd be ecstatic.
> 
> gg




In the medical profession, reputation is everything. Lose it, and you're buggered, no matter what.


----------



## Julia (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*

gg, I can only assume you're being ridiculous for the sake of being provocative.

Dr Haneef, imo, would have a righteous claim for tens of millions.  It is much more about his personal humiliation, and damaged reputation, not to mention the extraordinary stress of the whole sorry affair, than any tenure in the watchhouse.

Pretty funny listening to Kevin Andrews this evening on "PM", insisting the report had exonerated him!  He's one of the more pathetic of the ministers of the late Liberal government.

Looks as though Mick Keelty and ASIO might have a few questions to answer too which is a good thing.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



Julia said:


> gg, I can only assume you're being ridiculous for the sake of being provocative.
> 
> Dr Haneef, imo, would have a righteous claim for tens of millions.  It is much more about his personal humiliation, and damaged reputation, not to mention the extraordinary stress of the whole sorry affair, than any tenure in the watchhouse.
> 
> ...




So what amount of dollars, what quantum, would you put on it.

More than $13,354?

gg


----------



## Julia (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*

Already answered.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



Julia said:


> Already answered.




I say $$$ millions!! 


That is not an answer , it is a political position.


$40000, $100000

Give us some idea.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (23 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



Garpal Gumnut said:


> So what amount of dollars, what quantum, would you put on it.
> 
> More than $13,354?
> 
> gg




OK the Dollar has dropped against the Rupee.

I'll revise my quantum up

$16,494

gg


----------



## Prospector (24 December 2008)

What happened to this Doctor, who was respected by the local community who actually knew him, was evil and a blight on our justice process.  Certainly take him in for questionning, but for what happened after that tells us more about our racism than anything else.  Weapons of mass destruction anyone?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Prospector said:


> What happened to this Doctor, who was respected by the local community who actually knew him, was evil and a blight on our justice process.  Certainly take him in for questionning, but for what happened after that tells us more about our racism than anything else.  Weapons of mass destruction anyone?






One of the blokes who ran the car full of explosives into Glasgow airport was a doctor respected by the local community who actually knew him.


But that is getting away from the point of the thread and I would not suggest on any evidence presented that Dr.Haneef was anything other than a doctor respected by the local community who actually knew him.

What I am asking on this thread, for those of us who didn't actually know him, is,.....................

As a foreign resident ( I'm unsure if he's entitled to residency in OZ) how much of our taxpayers money do you reckon he deserves in recompense for his travails in Brisbane.

gg


----------



## Prospector (24 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> As a foreign resident ( I'm unsure if he's entitled to residency in OZ) how much of our taxpayers money do you reckon he deserves in recompense for his travails in Brisbane.
> 
> gg




OK, a court will determine how much loss he incurred as a result.  So look at his salary multiplied by 20 years say.  If there is a personal damages claim, (eg character defamation) then for someone in a professional capacity whose reputation determines success, well, $5million.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Prospector said:


> OK, a court will determine how much loss he incurred as a result.  So look at his salary multiplied by 20 years say.  If there is a personal damages claim, (eg character defamation) then for someone in a professional capacity whose reputation determines success, well, $5million.




$5 million is a lot of dough.

His reputation doesn't seem to have suffered in his home town. 

Can the quantum of damages be discounted for this.

$5 million seems on the high side.

gg


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> $5 million seems on the high side.
> 
> gg



I'd say it's well and truly on the low side.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Julia said:


> I'd say it's well and truly on the low side.




So Julia , how much should he get, $8 or even $10 million.?

Or is that too little?

gg


----------



## Prospector (24 December 2008)

GG  If what happens in his 'home town' was relevant, then he wouldnt have been practising medicine in Australia in the first place. 

The fact is, he was in Australia, practising medicine in a community which was happy to support him, earning good money.  He is taken by the Police for questionning, not a biggie in the overall scheme of things, he was then detained for days - getting bigger, the evidence concocted, then after that, his Visa is cancelled!  Why!

In Australia, if a doctor's reputation is harmed, his career is over.

I thought $5million PLUS his salary for the next 20 years.


----------



## gilbo (24 December 2008)

Haneef says he is owed damages because he is innocent. The problem is everyone is innocent until they commit a crime - so are we really saying we should just sit back and let people commit crimes (esp terrorism) and only arrest them after an atrocity?

If we (and in "we" I'm referring to society) don't think that a great strategy, then we're left with the real possibility that we will arrest someone who really wasn't going to commit an offence. It is all fine and dandy to look back in hindsight and declare that someone was not going to commit a crime, but in reality, given whatever evidence you have at your disposal, and no doubt some conflicting, it is a really difficult decision to make. Is it so terrible to get it wrong for the right reasons?

All I can think, is that if a person was a suspect terrorist, and authorities did nothing until they could get "concrete" proof, but in the meantime said person did commit an atrocity culminating in the terrible loss of life, how many of us would point the finger and say that they should have done "something" to prevent tragedy?

If, in the whole spectrum of terrorist atrocities, a few innocent people go through a "Haneef" episode, but significant lives are saved, is that so bad? And does that mean that the government (i.e. us) have to keep shelling out huge sums of money just for the privilege of trying to protect ourselves?


----------



## moXJO (24 December 2008)

It would have been cheaper to pay him out.



> February 18, 2008 - The Government is told the bungled Haneef investigation has cost taxpayers at least $7.5 million.
> 
> May 26, 2008 - AFP admit Haneef bill is in excess of $8.2 million and growing.




It was one bungle after the other. Even if there was a chance of him being guilty of anything, the whole case was just too much of a mess in the end.

So $5mill is still less then what they tried to waste on convicting him


----------



## xoa (24 December 2008)

Government bureaucrats need to be sued personally. Only then will they stop foisting draconian laws on us.

Otherwise, Haneef will be compensated with innocent taxpayers' money, and our glorious leaders won't give a rats.


----------



## Prospector (24 December 2008)

xoa said:


> Otherwise, Haneef will be compensated with innocent taxpayers' money, and our glorious leaders won't give a rats.





Aint that the truth!  

I had no problem with Haneef being held for a couple of days while he was being questioned.  He should never receive compensation if it had stopped as soon as the real situation emerged.  But the cancellation of his visa after all this, that is what comprises gross incompetence.


----------



## awg (24 December 2008)

I will venture an answer.

I would offer him an apology, a visa, pay his legals and $2million     compensation

the main reason I would do this is a "commercial settlement".

He is a citizen of India, and they will be watching closely.

It seems like the Australian officials in charge of this matter ****#d up several points.

I believe Cornelia Rau  got $2m, but the admin stuff-ups were not as severe in that case.

If it goes to trial, it will cost more than that, and on the available facts, he would probably win the case.

I dont know if he is "innocent" or not.

For Kevin Andrews to say he is exonerated is wicked


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

awg said:


> I believe Cornelia Rau  got $2m, but the admin stuff-ups were not as severe in that case.



lol wutt?

An Australian citizen got deported to a slum in the Phillipines.

I think she would have got much more had she pushed harder. But there is not the professional damages incurred either.


----------



## Prospector (24 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> lol wutt?
> 
> An Australian citizen got deported to a slum in the Phillipines.
> 
> I think she would have got much more had she pushed harder. But there is not the professional damages incurred either.




Wrong stuff up Chops!  Cornelia spent time in a Detention Centre as a result of mental incapacity in Queensland (?)  Another lady got shipped back to the Philippines - she was physically disabled.


----------



## Glen48 (24 December 2008)

Howard was looking for an election winner no matter what, Ruddock et el should made to pay, i notices the Ex-Feds were keen to thrown money at Rau & her Fillo mate who didn't seem to comprehend what was going on and Rau   saying she was not an Oz citizen.
Just another bailout supported by the ATO. At least the ACC is on to Storm to find out where the horse is after it has bolted.
Why do we keep voting for these people????


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

Prospector said:


> Wrong stuff up Chops!  Cornelia spent time in a Detention Centre as a result of mental incapacity in Queensland (?)  Another lady got shipped back to the Philippines - she was physically disabled.




Ahh right...

There's just been so many...


----------



## Uncle Barry (24 December 2008)

Good afternoon, 
People think a bit..please.

Did the Police do 'this' to the good Doctor for fun ?

At the time they had............................................
and were doing their best to protect you, me and all other Australians against a bomb type event here in this country of ours.

Got it, 
doing their best,

And now if there had been a bomb in the Gold Coast hospital and it had killed a couple of hundred, 
the same lot here giving money away would be then crying down the Police for not 'getting' the bad guy.

Sometimes,
there is just not enough evidence to place before a Jury to obtain a conviction.

And now before people carry on, 
how about someone talk to the people at the Gold Coast hospital and get an understanding of the facts.

"Dr.Haneef was anything other than a doctor respected by the local community who actually knew him."

Does this feed your mind, was he ?

ps, I live on the Gold Coast and have friends who work within the hospital.

Kind regards, 
UB
Please have a Safe and Merry Christmas, everybody.


----------



## Macquack (24 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



chops_a_must said:


> In the medical profession, reputation is everything. Lose it, and you're buggered, no matter what.




I cant see how his "professional" reputation was damaged. He was not accused of medical malpractice.

I say give him one full years salary of an ordinary Australian worker i.e. the average wage of $60,000 odd.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



Uncle Barry said:


> Good afternoon,
> People think a bit..please.
> 
> Did the Police do 'this' to the good Doctor for fun ?



Yeah, apparently they did.

The review showed them to be absolutely incompetent.



Macquack said:


> I cant see how his "professional" reputation was damaged. He was not accused of medical malpractice.
> 
> I say give him one full years salary of an ordinary Australian worker i.e. the average wage of $60,000 odd.




You've got to be kidding right?

I never said professional reputation, if you can read what you quoted me as saying.


The underlying racism when people discuss this issue astounds me...


----------



## Macquack (24 December 2008)

*Re: Dr.Haneef Damages Claim*



chops_a_must said:


> You've got to be kidding right?
> 
> I never said professional reputation, if you can read what you quoted me as saying.



Chops, your quote:-
"In the *medical profession*, *reputation* is everything. Lose it, and you're buggered, no matter what."

Sorry Chops, I will re-write what you meant to say
"In the medical profession, *personal reputation* is everything. Lose it, and you're buggered, no matter what."


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

Nope. I meant it exactly as I said it.

Reputation, BOTH personal and professional is everything.


----------



## Macquack (24 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Nope. I meant it exactly as I said it.
> 
> Reputation, BOTH personal and professional is everything.




Why not throw in "sporting" reputation.

Rumour has it, that he was a terrible golfer, in fact a *"hacker"*.

Sorry, not allowed to say that, might affect his "reputation" compensation payout.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

Dude, when you splash across every media outlet in the country and probably the world, that a doctor is in violation of their most fundamental core values of operation, it does not matter if it is personal reputation or not.

Because it reflects badly on them in their job.

If I put in every paper in the country that the head of the AMA is a serial killer, child rapist and likes to kill puppies, you honestly, honestly believe that wouldn't reflect badly on his professional reputation? Of course it bloody well would. Stop being stupid. But, "oh no, it's only personal reputation so who cares right?"

And that's why reputation in the medical industry is so so much different to any other types of occupation. 

If you present something as fact, that goes against the non-harm principle, or the hippopotamus oath, in regards to a doctor, it does not matter what it is in regards to, it does enormous damage.

Capiche?


----------



## Macquack (24 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Dude, when you splash across every media outlet in the country and probably the world, that a doctor is in violation of their most fundamental core values of operation, it does not matter if it is personal reputation or not.
> 
> Because it reflects badly on them in their job.
> 
> ...




Dont know about you, but I try to treat all people equally (so dont pull the "rascism" card on me, "dude").

I could not care less if Haneef was a doctor or a toilet cleaner. A persons human rights were violated. 

Do you have to be a "doctor" to "maximise" you compensation claim?


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

Macquack said:


> Dont know about you, but I try to treat all people equally (so dont pull the "rascism" card on me, "dude").
> 
> I could not care less if Haneef was a doctor or a toilet cleaner. A persons human rights were violated.
> 
> Do you have to be a "doctor" to "maximise" you compensation claim?




You have to treat them as different.

His chances of working here as a cleaner again, if he was one, are pretty high. Working here again as a doctor? Forget about it.

Given one of the main criteria for compensation is loss of income, that is taken from income/ tax statements etc. it would help to be a doctor to maximise compensation. Especially if a judge deems his ability to return to work here is next to none, because of the cretinism of the AFP.

The payments for pain and suffering wouldn't make a difference no matter what his job was. But how much of the pain and suffering was due to the attention his status in the community brought? 

So yes, in a lot of ways, they have to treat various people completely differently due to varying circumstances. It's enshrined in common law.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Macquack said:


> Dont know about you, but I try to treat all people equally (so dont pull the "rascism" card on me, "dude").
> 
> I could not care less if Haneef was a doctor or a toilet cleaner. A persons human rights were violated.
> 
> Do you have to be a "doctor" to "maximise" you compensation claim?





An excellent point mate.

What harm has been done specifically  to him overall, in the grand scheme of things.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (24 December 2008)

He didn't lose his reputation permanently.

He did lose say 4 months pay - say $60,000
And there was some pain and suffering involved.

I would give him $110,000.

Knobby


----------



## disarray (24 December 2008)

why are we all falling over ourselves to please this guy? it's a tense time, there were some serious issues to be investigated and in managing the case we find another one of our bureaucrats turns out to be a complete idiot. wow a big shock there.

sacrifice some scapegoats, put some pressure on the departments responsible to tighten procedures, then send a polite public apology to the good doctor and reasonable payment (tens of millions pfft are you for real????) for the inconvenience. then wish him good luck in his adventures to some other first world country which would undoubtedly welcome him with open arms. or he could stay in india and devote his essential skills to the betterment of the hundreds of millions of his poor countrymen who daily suffer from poverty, discrimination and ill health. naah, i'll take skilled visa to the first world with the socialised welfare and family reunion option thanks.

i don't get all this and song and dance "maybe ill come to australia but i feel victimised and aussies are racist and i'll need compensation blah blah"? how about stfu and come back to work or piss off somewhere else? meanwhile fund our education system and train our own bloody medical professionals instead of funding generation after generation of welfare slugs.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Knobby22 said:


> He didn't lose his reputation permanently.
> 
> He did lose say 4 months pay - say $60,000
> And there was some pain and suffering involved.
> ...




A mate who works as a doc in a similar hosptal says he would have been lucky to clear $30,000 over three months, so taking into account inflation which is at historical lows, I would suggest he get.

$30,125

Thats not bad for a bloke in his situation and it seems fair.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (24 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> A mate who works as a doc in a similar hosptal says he would have been lucky to clear $30,000 over three months, so taking into account inflation which is at historical lows, I would suggest he get.
> 
> $30,125
> 
> ...




ABC is saying $50,000. Doesn't sound far off. Lawyers will get most of it.

Agree with you disaaray however if we start treating professionals from overseas badly it will backfire on us eventually and we like to think we give people a fair go.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

Knobby22 said:


> ABC is saying $50,000. Doesn't sound far off. Lawyers will get most of it.
> 
> Agree with you disaaray however if we start treating professionals from overseas badly it will backfire on us eventually and we like to think we give people a fair go.



If that's the case, he would probably be in hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.

Can't see them not paying out his legal fees at least.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Knobby22 said:


> ABC is saying $50,000. Doesn't sound far off. Lawyers will get most of it.
> 
> Agree with you disaaray however if we start treating professionals from overseas badly it will backfire on us eventually and we like to think we give people a fair gheringo.




A fair go is very important mate.

It goes to the heart of what makes us Australian.

Unfortunately others do not share this concept.

Tribalism, godbothering, and profiting from decent democracies legal processes takes precedent.

It will be a lawyers picnic but $30000 or thereabouts should be the maximum quantum.

The reasons we have these overseas doctors treating us are many and varied but often lead back to NSW Right Wing political machinations.

gg


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

gilbo said:


> Haneef says he is owed damages because he is innocent. The problem is everyone is innocent until they commit a crime - so are we really saying we should just sit back and let people commit crimes (esp terrorism) and only arrest them after an atrocity?
> 
> If we (and in "we" I'm referring to society) don't think that a great strategy, then we're left with the real possibility that we will arrest someone who really wasn't going to commit an offence. It is all fine and dandy to look back in hindsight and declare that someone was not going to commit a crime, but in reality, given whatever evidence you have at your disposal, and no doubt some conflicting, it is a really difficult decision to make. Is it so terrible to get it wrong for the right reasons?
> 
> ...



You're quite right.  This is the other side of feeling sorry for what Haneef has gone through.
Had he in fact been engaged in some terrorist plot and the FP failed to act then we would be cursing them to hell and back.
I don't suppose we will ever know whether he had any involvement with the activities of his cousins or not.
However, the charges against him were dropped, so he needs to be compensated accordingly.





awg said:


> I believe Cornelia Rau  got $2m, but the admin stuff-ups were not as severe in that case.



Neither did Ms Rau have a professional reputation to protect.





Uncle Barry said:


> Sometimes,
> there is just not enough evidence to place before a Jury to obtain a conviction.



That's true.  Dropping of charges doesn't always imply innocence.



> And now before people carry on,
> how about someone talk to the people at the Gold Coast hospital and get an understanding of the facts.
> 
> "Dr.Haneef was anything other than a doctor respected by the local community who actually knew him."
> ...



Insinuation is ugly.   If you know something which contradicts the publicised comments of his superiors, i.e. that he was a very competent doctor who enjoyed good relationships with his colleagues, then why not be clear about it?






chops_a_must said:


> Reputation, BOTH personal and professional is everything.



I absolutely agree.  You can pay compensation and offer apologies but there will always be attached to his name the comment:  "wasn't he the doctor who was locked up for something to do with terrorism?"
Hardly conducive to being offered senior positions in the medical profession.



Knobby22 said:


> ABC is saying $50,000. Doesn't sound far off. Lawyers will get most of it.



Yes, let's remember the legal bills he will be up for.  There seem to be several lawyers working over a long period of time.   Imo $50K is way too little.
The legal bills will be more than that on their own.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

Julia said:


> I don't suppose we will ever know whether he had any involvement with the activities of his cousins or not.



Isn't that a part of the problem though?

We really shouldn't know a thing about it. And that stigma is damaging. It was the AFP's choice to play it out through the media as if he was already guilty.

That's the real problem. If it wasn't played out through the media, we wouldn't be handing over compensation. But because due process was not carried out on all levels, the government has absolutely no case.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, let's remember the legal bills he will be up for.  There seem to be several lawyers working over a long period of time.   Imo $50K is way too little.
> The legal bills will be more than that on their own.




I think the earlier lawyers would have been paid already out of the public purse. Some were doing it to make a name for themselves.

His present lawyers should be trying for a settlement out of court but then they will be paid less. We shall see. Law is arcane, the only thing I am sure of is that the lawyers always win.


----------



## Julia (24 December 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Isn't that a part of the problem though?
> 
> We really shouldn't know a thing about it. And that stigma is damaging. It was the AFP's choice to play it out through the media as if he was already guilty.
> 
> That's the real problem. If it wasn't played out through the media, we wouldn't be handing over compensation. But because due process was not carried out on all levels, the government has absolutely no case.



Exactly so.   Very irritating that our tax payer dollars should have been so misused in the first place, and then will undoubtedly be further paid out in compensation.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2008)

Knobby22 said:


> I think the earlier lawyers would have been paid already out of the public purse. Some were doing it to make a name for themselves.
> 
> His present lawyers should be trying for a settlement out of court but then they will be paid less. We shall see. Law is arcane, the only thing I am sure of is that the lawyers always win.




The lawyers have the government over a barrel though. I don't see why they wouldn't be pushing for an in court settlement.

In that case, any legal fees will be handed to the government, as they have absolutely no case. So that wont even be a debating point. Which would open the way to an outright payment to Haneef, without it tied in to legal bills.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (24 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Exactly so.   Very irritating that our tax payer dollars should have been so misused in the first place, and then will undoubtedly be further paid out in compensation.






Garpal Gumnut said:


> A fair go is very important mate.
> 
> It goes to the heart of what makes us Australian.
> 
> ...




Yes we should keep it real.

This fellow should not be awarded more than the diggers at Anzac Cove.

gg


----------



## Prospector (25 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Yes we should keep it real.
> 
> This fellow should not be awarded more than the diggers at Anzac Cove.
> 
> gg




I always thought that Anzac Cove was the main battlefront of the Australians, although my Grandpa fought in France and then was later involved in the repatriation and war graves.  While Gallipoli is obviously important, the battle fields of France were where most Aussies were battling.  And dying.

We need to keep things in perspective, that is very true, but comparing what happens today, with how we dealt with things in in 1900's doesnt really work.


----------



## awg (25 December 2008)

awg said:


> I will venture an answer.
> 
> I would offer him an apology, a visa, pay his legals and $2million     compensation
> 
> ...





I've changed my answer, but only a little bit.

I wouldnt offer him $2m straight up, I would start with a lower figure, and haggle..he is from the sub-continent after all

the $2m was probably more what I think he would be aiming to settle for.

they are my tax dollars, and I would prefer to see them spent productively

still the same principal, the matter is a "commercial settlement"

the main issue legally IMO is that this matter was badly stuffed by the people at the top of the tree, the guy was systematically the recipient of legally incorrect treatment by the nations top lawmakers, whatever that means

so he has to be now sorted out at the same level.

if he isnt, he will probably pursue the matter, at more cost, to me and you.

he has no reason why not to.

once again, I dont say I think he neccesarily deserves that amount, but would also take into account he is a citizen of India, who is a big trading partner for Oz, they can get a little bit terse if they think one of their own is treated wrong, but all is forgiven if the matter is compensated.

having said that, it if it happened to you or me in 99% of foreign countries, Im sure we would get told to bugg#r off, and never come back


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2008)

awg said:


> once again, I dont say I think he neccesarily deserves that amount, but would also take into account he is a citizen of India, who is a big trading partner for Oz, they can get a little bit terse if they think one of their own is treated wrong, but all is forgiven if the matter is compensated.
> 
> having said that, it if it happened to you or me in 99% of foreign countries, Im sure we would get told to bugg#r off, and never come back




I doubt very much whether the Indian government would be in the slightest bit interested in assisting Dr.Haneef.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 December 2008)

awg said:


> having said that, it if it happened to you or me in 99% of foreign countries, Im sure we would get told to bugg#r off, and never come back




And this is the point most should be aware of. So why is Australia the handout nation of the planet?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2008)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> And this is the point most should be aware of. So why is Australia the handout nation of the planet?




Agree mate.

Kevin Rudd needs to take control of this "event"

Surely the Parliament can pass a law that people disadvantaged by investigations into offences against the integrity of Australia are forbidden from claiming civil damages in our courts.

gg


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree mate.
> 
> Kevin Rudd needs to take control of this "event"
> 
> ...




Exactly.
Would Russia be so kind to say sorry. "Sorry we stuffed up would you like your future secured ?" NO!


----------



## lucas (25 December 2008)

We live in a world that has gone completely barking mad.

A world in which doctors - doctors, mind you, who are presumably educated enough to comprehend the Hippocratic Oath and its ramifications - launch themselves in Jeep Cherokees at crowded airports with the intention of maiming hundreds of innocent people for a deluded religious conviction.

But this idiocy is compounded by media outlets that make it practically impossible for decent folk to lock a guy up for a few weeks with the intention of learning if he is as dangerous as the rest of his family...without having every single human being in the country having to fork out if he's found to be innocent! Lunacy.

We've each and every one of us already paid around $2.50 on behalf of this suspect for the privilege of finding out he was apparently innocent, and now we are going to be asked to fork out even more. I say stop this nonsense and seriously consider doing as the French do, and that is, presume suspects guilty until they prove their innocence. The French seem to manage OK with this.

By all means congratulate this doctor on having proved himself not guilty, but then tell him to bugger off. Not reward him for wasting our time and money because of his stupid actions. These apparently include phoning the bombers the night before the attack; leaving the country on a one-way ticket without even informing his employers the day after the attack; claiming this was cheaper than a two-way ticket (but what if you intend to return?); phoning the UK police four times but not having the sense to walk into the local plod shop etc.

What a creep. And we have to set him up for life now? Madness.


----------



## awg (25 December 2008)

You guys are winning me over somewhat.

The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of giving my money to him.

I reckon he knew something was going on.

But Australian judicial proof requirements are very high.

Will be interesting to see what approach is followed.

I still suspect a commercial approach will be taken.

If the govt wants to play hardball, it will make it fairly difficult to mount an effective action, unless his legal team want to work pro bono for as long as it takes.

That approach would make them reluctant to apologise.

I wonder how much information that has not been released.


----------



## lucas (25 December 2008)

It's not that hard to find evidence online that some British foreign doctors are becoming radicalised - this six months before the attacks: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/MuslimdoctorsUK/message/30

This rant is in a forum for student foreign doctors in the UK. What I find disturbing is that not a single subscribed group member saw fit to object to it and similar postings. The author supports violent jihad, but condemns July 2005. Apparently at least one foreign doctor in the UK (Haneef's cousin and since deported) was less inclined to discriminate.

Perhaps when I read that Haneef has strongly condemned terrorist attacks and the actions of his family members I will take him at his word, but so far his outrage is reserved for those whom he accuses of levelling "heinous charges" at him. If members of my family attempted to blow people up for Allah, I would be only too happy to spend time with ASIO and the police - months if necessary - helping them with any details I could possibly give them. I would have visited the police, not run from them.

Is he innocent? We shall never know. But the fact that he was arrested at the airport tells us two things: that the police expected him to flee the country, and that he did. I don't see why taxpayers should reward him for this.


----------



## Glen48 (25 December 2008)

What about his bad name with the Rental Authority he left with out getting his rent up to date and lost all his contents plus the AFP made a mess of his unit looking for SIM cards, Ph records and any thing they could hang on him.
Makes you wonder how an English  D. could fix victims one day and want to blow people up the next.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2008)

Glen48 said:


> What about his bad name with the Rental Authority he left with out getting his rent up to date and lost all his contents plus the AFP made a mess of his unit looking for SIM cards, Ph records and any thing they could hang on him.
> Makes you wonder how an English  D. could fix victims one day and want to blow people up the next.




He could sue the Real Estate agent but he's probably working in Bunnings now.

gg


----------



## Sunder (25 December 2008)

This is a really tough one, and probably why the judges decide instead of juries.

I agree the man deserves SOMETHING. How much that something is, is beyond my ken. On the one hand you have to balance the needs of a person, against the needs of a community. And then you need to realise that as a part of a community, sometimes you just need to surrender your rights for the good of the society.

As I understand it, ASIO got some dodgy information from a reliable source. I think they may have done what was right in the first place, but fumbled it when it started unravelling. 

What's the acceptable rate of false positives, to reduce the rate of false negatives? Would you allow 1 innocent to go to jail, if that meant another 10 genuinely guilty people could get convicted on less than prime quality evidence? What if it were 100 guilty? 

To broaden the question, how many innocent men would you allow jailed for just 1 week as a precaution, without compensation (or trivial compensation, such as the week's wages) to save 100 lives, by preventing a terrorist attack? How many, if one of those 100 lives saved was your child? How many, if one of those accused was you?

Not easy questions, are they?


----------



## lucas (25 December 2008)

It was Haneef's second cousin who was the doctor who was deported - for withholding information from the UK police. I assume about the impending attack. Nice doctors in Haneef's family.

But I was incorrect - he did go to the hospital and ask for leave. Sorry Haneef. But why not go to the police? You made three phone calls to the UK police - out of their business hours - (should I be happy to know these cops get sleep hours after major terrorist attempts?) but you couldn't walk around the corner to the cop shop Monday morning? What? You couldn't help them with their enquiries once you saw what these monster relatives of yours had tried to do?

This is a transcript from the 60 Minutes interview:



> TARA BROWN: So, did you ever send funds to your cousins, did you ever send money there?
> 
> DR MOHAMED HANEEF: No, I have sent money to the UK to pay my loans, what I had, but not to my cousins, no.




...and this from the ABC Four Corners interview:



> LIZ JACKSON: You did give money at one point to your Cousin Kafeel Ahmed?
> 
> MOHAMED HANEEF: No I haven’t given... ah, yeah that was that was actually to transfer money to back to back home to my India…
> 
> ...




Why are we being asked to compensate this chap, who clearly contradicts himself in public? Is he just stupid? Too much just doesn't add up. I'd like to see that chat room tapescript one day too...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 December 2008)

Sunder said:


> This is a really tough one, and probably why the judges decide instead of juries.
> 
> I agree the man deserves SOMETHING. How much that something is, is beyond my ken. On the one hand you have to balance the needs of a person, against the needs of a community. And then you need to realise that as a part of a community, sometimes you just need to surrender your rights for the good of the society.
> 
> ...




Excellent points.

Ask the poor bastards in the Twin Towers, Kota Beach and Paddy's bar.

Nobody asks the dead for their opinion.

I reckon he should get about $15000 and be told to po and enjoy his fame in  the Middle East where he now resides and works.

It is up to Kevin Rudd to pass legislation forbidding suspects in terrorist activities from claiming damages for detention or investigation while facts are being collated, whether those investigations with hindsight are flawed or not. 

gg


----------



## Julia (25 December 2008)

awg said:


> You guys are winning me over somewhat.
> 
> The more I think about it, the less I like the idea of giving my money to him.



I, too, have to admit I'm becoming ambivalent about this.   

If I put myself in the position of being accused of something I haven't done, being questioned vigorously, locked up, charged, then I feel the outrage is huge and demands significant compensation plus an apology.

But if I consider that he may indeed have been implicated in some sort of similar terrorist plan for Australia as his cousins executed in the UK, then my outrage goes in a different direction and I fully support his arrest and subsequent detention.  Given his relationship to the UK terrorists, I guess ASIO and the FP would have been negligent in not taking the action they did.

I think the person most at fault here is Kevin Andrews.  The charges were dropped and that should have been the end of it.  But Mr Andrews, for reasons known only to himself it seems, then cancelled his visa.

I guess we have to primarily consider what is "for the greater good" and in that case Dr Haneef was (if innocent) the sacrificial lamb.


----------



## lucas (26 December 2008)

Downloaded the two police interviews (3/7/07 & 13/7/07) with Haneef last night:

http://www.hindu.com/nic/0058/haneef.htm

Haneef wanted them published so he could clear his name. I don't blame him. It surprises me that no competent journalist has yet bothered to piece together a timeline of the events as they unfolded since the birth of his daughter by C section on the 26th June.

The first thing that becomes apparent is that he earns very good money. Good luck to him. He funnels almost all of it back to his family in India. He is the breadwinner. No laws broken there. But he couldn't get someone to cover for him to enable him to go home to be with his wife. This entire episode would have been a non-Aussie event had he been able to get leave. It is unclear (at least to me), whether he ever actually asked for leave or if it was just his belief that no-one could cover for him. Either way, it is a pretty sad indictment of any public system that he had to work for a week while his wife was being cut open in a hospital during a premature birth in India. He learned of his poor daughter's jaundice on the Sunday - his daughter was readmitted to hospital. He then decided to try to obtain leave on the Monday.

The airport attack in Glasgow occurred Saturday 30 June 2007, at 15:11 BST. Haneef showed up for work at 8.00 a.m. Monday. Busy all morning. At around two-thirty some doctor gets a call from his brother in India and this doctor tells Haneef to ring his brother - some problem with a sim card. Haneef goes home. He rings his brother who has been telephoned by the mother of Haneef's second cousin (the now deported doctor who was being held in custody in the UK). This mother is going to ring Haneef because she wants Haneef to help clear her son's name - he's been arrested.

The most surprising thing is that no-one mentions terror attacks. Just a problem with the sim card and an arrest. No-one says "Oh my God! Have you seen the news? Our cousin's implicated in that terror attack!" We are expected to believe that all this sim card talk and the arrest is revealed and spoken about on the phone without any knowledge of the events in London and Glasgow over the weekend. In fact, that is the most suspicious thing - no-one ever mentions the attacks.

He goes back to the hospital after talking with his brother and manages to arrange leave for 7 days. Someone can cover for him. He then calls his cousin's mum (although in the later transcript 13 July he contradicts this and says she called him and he added her number to his mobile) and he's told to ring the UK police. (He does so three times - on his mobile, but can't get through. He tries again when he is at home but to no avail at 4.32 p.m. after a Yahoo chat session with his brother.) He then rings his father-in-law in India and asks him to buy a ticket because he has no money (on $62,000 a year?). He informs his father-in-law about the "incident in the UK", but this is taken to mean the sim card problem, because Haneef still hasn't heard about the attack(s). Around four o'clock the father-in-law rings back to say the travel agent will send the e-ticket by email. Haneef checks out of the hospital, goes home. Has an chat session with his brother at 4.13 p.m. But this is where it all gets confusing. He talks about waiting for the airport van to come and pick him up at 8.00 p.m. and speaking to his brother in the evening(?) about the attack. But he's then shown the transcript of the chat session. So we know he is aware of the attacks at around 4.15 p.m. He doesn't read through the entire article on the Glasgow attack. This I find to be incredible. What? Four hours to wait for the bus and he doesn't read all he can about what has transpired - given that he is implicated in it? The transcript of the chat session at the very bottom of the second interview is inconclusive, but it is mostly eerie for what it doesn't say. A family member has tried to blow up an airport for God's sake!

Does it prove his complicity? I don't know. A smarter guy than me should deal with it. Have I got the timeline right? I can't say for sure - but the police say they didn't have enough evidence for anything to stand up in court. He's been cleared anyway, so it's all over bar the compo.

But I think it says plenty about how polite the police were, how correct Andrews was to be very very wary, and how misled we all are by those who who have done all they could to saddle the sorry saga with political ballast.


----------



## rederob (27 December 2008)

lucas said:


> Does it prove his complicity? I don't know. A smarter guy than me should deal with it. Have I got the timeline right? I can't say for sure - but the police say they didn't have enough evidence for anything to stand up in court. He's been cleared anyway, so it's all over bar the compo.



That "smarter" person was Justice Clarke:


> Some observations need to be made about this decision to charge:
> • The advice given by Mr Porritt was obviously wrong and should never have
> been given. Apart from anything else, there was no evidence that in July 2006
> there existed a terrorist organisation involving Sabeel Ahmed or Kafeel
> ...


----------



## lucas (28 December 2008)

Clarke is the problem not the solution. Anyone is wise after the fact (though not this Justice in my view), and he is happy to pander to public sentiment. If we had a truly fearless report we wouldn't be contemplating paying millions to a man whose lies are there for all to see on the public record. It doesn't mean he is a terrorist; it does mean he plays up and down with the truth.

People are charged with crimes dozens of times a week; sometimes the charges are dropped. So what? Clarke said he was "surprised" that no one involved in the police investigation “stood back at any time prior to the decision to charge (Haneef) and reflected on what Dr Haneef was known to have done.”

Really? He obviously had more problems than I had reading the police interviews. Anyway, how does Clarke know what was said in the initial chats with Haneef at the airport?

I mean a few tads smarter than Clarke - someone able to pick apart the inconsistencies in Haneef's story. I suppose there will be a book. The usual hogwash revealing how bad everyone else is - everyone else except, of course, the chap who didn't know about the attack until 4.15 p.m. Monday despite dozens of phone calls about the sim card, a day at work, and a previous entire day at home with the TV and the Internet...the chap who said he didn't bother to read up about his own cousins being named in the Glasglow attack even though he had hours to wait for the bus... the chap who told the public that he had never ever sent money to his cousins, but evidently and admittedly had done so...the chap whose bizarre reaction to the so-called first time knowledge of the attacks is there for all to read in that chat session...the  chap who says he bears no grudges towards anyone in Australia but wants us all to buy him a round of drinks.

I have no drum to bang for Andrews or the government he represented but I would have cancelled his visa too. Good grief! It wasn't that long ago we were denying foreigners visas because they didn't know who Bradman was! Now THAT'S a crime.

As I say, the world is barking mad.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

The fact is there will be a damages claim.

Lawyers are a greedy lot.

They will want a cut so there will be a claim.

I am ambivalent too about the quantum of damages. 

I would be comfortable with him getting $18567 as long as he signed a letter saying he wouldn't go for compo e.g. workers compo or ptsd or some other s**t that folk go for in legal cases.

gg


----------



## lucas (28 December 2008)

Whatever he gets he should donate to the poor of India or some worthwhile charity. After all, the terrorist doctor who died of his burns wanted to do as much for Haneef with Haneef's loan repayment to him.

But I'm with you gg - that should be the last ever payout in these circumstances - and I still figure if ever meet him, he'll owe me around a fiver.


----------



## rederob (28 December 2008)

lucas said:


> Really? He obviously had more problems than I had reading the police interviews. Anyway, how does Clarke know what was said in the initial chats with Haneef at the airport?
> 
> I mean a few tads smarter than Clarke - someone able to pick apart the inconsistencies in Haneef's story. I suppose there will be a book. The usual hogwash revealing how bad everyone else is - everyone else except, of course, the chap who didn't know about the attack until 4.15 p.m. Monday despite dozens of phone calls about the sim card, a day at work, and a previous entire day at home with the TV and the Internet...the chap who said he didn't bother to read up about his own cousins being named in the Glasglow attack even though he had hours to wait for the bus... the chap who told the public that he had never ever sent money to his cousins, but evidently and admittedly had done so...the chap whose bizarre reaction to the so-called first time knowledge of the attacks is there for all to read in that chat session...the  chap who says he bears no grudges towards anyone in Australia but wants us all to buy him a round of drinks.



Your distortions are typical of the beat up tried by the former government.
Minister Andrews' actions were ill considered, and despite having access to a lot of information, he chose to use only those aspects which suited his purposes (and the then Government's).
Andrews, for example, was asked repeatedly about Haneef's attempts to call British police before attempting to fly to India. "We don't know the full details about that contact and how that occurred or whether it occurred," he told the ABC.  Most would say Andrews lied.  At best it showed his incompetence in handling a matter where the facts would ultimately come to light.  
By the way, the AFP officers who actually interviewed Haneef would never have laid charges.  Their superior, who Clarke accuses of losing objectivity, was the culprit.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

lucas said:


> Whatever he gets he should donate to the poor of India or some worthwhile charity. After all, the terrorist doctor who died of his burns wanted to do as much for Haneef with Haneef's loan repayment to him.
> 
> But I'm with you gg - that should be the last ever payout in these circumstances - and I still figure if ever meet him, he'll owe me around a fiver.




Agree mate, these godbotherers can go and pray five or six times a day and get quite a buzz out of it all.

This free buzz should be discounted in any quantum he gets.

You and I have to volunteer, give money to charity or trade options to feel as close to the creator as these jokers can.

I think I'll decrease his payout accordingly to $17462.

gg


----------



## lucas (28 December 2008)

You are entitled to your viewpoint - but you are adding political baggage - something I have been at pains to avoid.

Distortions? No. Questions. As yet unanswered.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

lucas said:


> You are entitled to your viewpoint - but you are adding political baggage - something I have been at pains to avoid.
> 
> Distortions? No. Questions. As yet unanswered.




I accept your criticism Lucas, but a person's wider life and agenda needs to be taken in to account when assessing "damages".

I must apologise.

gg


----------



## lucas (28 December 2008)

Oops! Mea culpa mate, my reply was to rederob who claimed I was distorting things. I don't think so. I've corrected errors I made before I did a bit of research. I've tried to be fair to Haneef. Someone should have asked these questions long ago.

Too late now.

I'm outa here - Happy New Year to all!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2008)

lucas said:


> Oops! Mea culpa mate, my reply was to rederob who claimed I was distorting things. I don't think so. I've corrected errors I made before I did a bit of research. I've tried to be fair to Haneef. Someone should have asked these questions long ago.
> 
> Too late now.
> 
> I'm outa here - Happy New Year to all!




You'll be missed mate.

Very insightful.

Reconsider a permanent exit

gg


----------



## lucas (28 December 2008)

Well, OK - I'm away on holiday for a few days but I'll keep in touch.

It's a curious case. It fascinates me. Haneef was charged, by the way, on the 14th July - a day after that second police interview. Although I don't mean this to be a politically charged observation, Kevin Rudd in Opposition immediately announced he was pleased with the the way Australian Federal Police have handled the case.



> "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.




I remember agreeing at the time with the substance of what Rudd said - and, of course, I still do.

I mention this only to remind, well, myself really, how poisonous politics is.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/14/1978526.htm

It should be about finding out what really happened and who knew what, not pushing a political wheelbarrow with Haneef in  it. It's a form of exploitation.

He doesn't deserve bucketloads of cash, but he doesn't deserve that either.


----------



## slim pickins (3 January 2009)

as a staunch conservative i believe the govt should leave us all alone as much as possible. a police investigation should not result in a cancellation of a visa. 

freedom of association is a right under the constitution. having a nut of a cousin does not mean you are one as well. if he is not charged he should be compensated. 

his damages.... well i would not go to him after this. so hes lost me as a patient. and i'm pretty open minded guy. his reputation is toast for a decade. btu he probably would not have opened a private practice for a decade anyway. so not a huge loss of income.

so actual loss (damages) maybe $200,000 excluding legal bills. punative damages (punishing the government for stuffling up your life) and preventing future governments from doign the same. $1.5 mil.

$1.7 mil all up. and lets face it with that payout you are set for life. especially if you live in india.

mind you, if it was me.... id would not be happy with less then $5 mil.


----------



## Macquack (3 January 2009)

slim pickins said:


> .... well i would not go to him after this. so hes lost me as a patient. and i'm pretty open minded guy.



You go on about how the guy has been hard done by and should be compensated, yet you would not go to him as a patient. 
I would not call that "open minded".



slim pickins said:


> *$1.7 mil all up*. and lets face it with that payout you are set for life. especially if you live in india.
> 
> mind you, if it was me.... *id would not be happy with less then $5 mil*.




Kind of a double standard there.
"One for you and two for me".


----------



## cuttlefish (3 January 2009)

Gee, another inspiring thread started by GG ... what a blast.:

I haven't read the thread but my view is the treatment of Haneef highlighted serious flaws in our legal system and punitive damages need to be awarded against the govt to deter them from making the same sorts of mistakes again.

So how about $100 million punitive damages against the govt, with only $10 million going to Haneef, $89 million to a charity to support people maimed, orphaned or widowed by the US led bombings of Iraq, and $1 million to a charity to for cheering up miserable old wowsers.

One day I will simply learn not to open these threads.


----------



## lucas (4 January 2009)

Well, cuttlefish, you could always start your own thread:



> Gee, another inspiring thread started by GG ... what a blast.




But it might pay you to read it in full - if only to suspend your belief awhile in your preconceptions.

If you are willing to throw that sort of money around - money that belongs to the entire community - then you need to ask yourself under what conditions such money should be awarded. Does Haneef need to be squeaky clean? Or is a little bit dirty still OK?

I have pointed out plenty of evidence for him lying - evidence that may not convict him in court of being a terrorist - but which lend credence to the argument that he should at least accept some responsibility for what happened to him. (Of course, it's laughable that this should be seen as distortion simply because it doesn't fit someone's preconceived ideas of who should be in government - political viewpoints are fine, naturally, but they don't argue for facts being distortions.)

It seems that every time Haneef opens his mouth he convicts himself of disingenuousness. This week he claimed that he left the country because he was "frightened". At least, that is the way it was reported. Sloppy reporting? Was he merely referring to being arrested? Or was he referring to the purchase of the ticket? You choose...



> Dr Haneef, who lives in Dubai, said he regretted buying a one-way ticket to India after the attacks but "it wasn't anything wrong as such, it wasn't anything out of guilt".
> 
> "Mr Clarke has indicated what was going on, I had my baby," he said. "I mean, I was frightened, he's mentioned it in this report, and there's nothing else." Jonathan Pearlman SMH December 30, 2008




If he was referring to the purchase of the ticket, then he lied consistently to the police and in the TV interviews when quizzed about his reasons for his departure.

There is a good deal more evidence to support the theory that he knew something was afoot than that he didn't. Why mention you are frightened in the context of purchasing the ticket but you tell the police you did  not know the attacks had taken place two days earlier - news that was all over the media everywhere in the world? Yet neither he, nor any of his friends, colleagues or family knew or spoke of this to him? You either knew of it when purchasing the ticket or you didn't. And you were either frightened for a reason or you weren't. Big BS.

It doesn't provide guilt of him having been involved in the plot, true, but this - together with the documented total (and you can read total) lack of surprise at the acts of his cousin - strongly suggests he was aware of his cousin's (cousins'?) convictions and the possibility of such attacks occurring.

Not dobbing your cousin in for this is a crime and his cousin was found guilty of it and deported from the UK. While it is perfectly correct that one should not try a man for his brother's (or cousin's) crimes, it is reasonable to suspect that a man is guilty of a crime if he consistently steers his accusers away from the truth.

You can believe in his innocence as much as you want but it doesn't fit his testimony, which is why cancelling his visa seems to my cautious mind an appropriate action. But no, an Aussie's concept of a "fair go" will always trump common sense. Two concepts which do not necessarily share a similar meaning but ought not to be mutually exclusive if they lead in different directions.


----------



## cuttlefish (4 January 2009)

lucas said:


> But it might pay you to read it in full - if only to suspend your belief awhile in your preconceptions.




My issue with this case is that Haneef was detained for a long period of time without charge under the anti-terrorism legislation. This sort of legislation is always prone to being the subject of either negligence or deliberate abuse.  

Detention, particularly an open ended one without any apparent or obvious process surrounding it, is an extremely damaging psychological experience.

The government spent a lot more than $100 million assisting the US in Iraq based on 'evidence' of WMD.


----------



## nulla nulla (4 January 2009)

imo the government should negotiate a settlement which includes financial compensation; an admission that the govt stuffed up; and a public apology.

The laws that allowed this travesty to proceed as long as it did should be reviewed, amended and/or repealed. ASIO needs a good kick in the bum for misleading the judical system and those responsible should be demoted, transfered out or sacked (without entitlements).


----------



## lucas (4 January 2009)

It's only a travesty if he's 100% innocent. My investigations indicate to me that Haneef hasn't told the whole truth. It's immaterial to me that authorities stuff up - that's what authority always does and only surprises people who haven't lived long enough (or ever been in a position of authority). The nature of the law is a constant series of adjustments. It's infantile to believe that authority will always do the right thing in all cases - especially difficult cases like this one.


----------



## cuttlefish (4 January 2009)

lucas said:


> It's only a travesty if he's 100% innocent. My investigations indicate to me that Haneef hasn't told the whole truth.




Your investigations are based on second hand information which is largely hearsay, and not always from unbiased sources (unless you consider the media - who just loves a conspiracy theory, controversy and sensationalism - to be unbiased).

The whole reason for having a court system is that it allows evidence to presented in first hand form without predjudice, under rules of evidence and at the risk of contempt charges if false evidence is presented. 

It also reduces bias by allowing both presenting parties to have their own advocate and adequate opportunity to present evidence for or against their case.

But because its the big bad boogeyman "Terrorism" its suddenly ok to throw every ounce of effort that has gone into producing a fair legal system over centuries out of the window, and instead just throw people directly into jail for weeks with no charge and then subsequently subject them to trial by media instead.

Over 50 people were killed on the Australian roads over the Christmas holiday period, over 1000 people died on Australian roads this year.    Should we lock up anybody that we have a hunch may sometime in the future be a bad or dangerous driver?  Should we lock up anybody that we think may not succesfully implement a road maintenance program and thus subject peoples lives to risk?  Should we lock up people that don't fund road safety initiatives when they had the opportunity to do it?   Should we lock up every motor vehicle company executive for selling weapons of mass destruction (i.e. cars) into our society?    

Well over 8000 Australians have been killed in motor vehicle accidents since 2001 - why haven't we introduced draconian legislation to address this problem?!?


----------



## lucas (4 January 2009)

It's an interesting argument, but I can't subscribe to it. The flaws in it are obvious to anyone with an ounce of reasoned thinking. (It doesn't mean it isn't interesting!)

My investigations, admittedly, are not professional - I'm really only asking what I think are perfectly valid questions and pointing out instances of what can only be described as lies. Deliberate lies? Well, it would seem so. They cannot be based on all the evidence since I don't have access to it, but my arguments are not based on "second hand information". If you read the thread you would know that I have based my conjectures on the two extant police interviews, Haneef's own words quoted in the media, and on his own words in two TV interviews. I don't think I have claimed anything other than that he has lied. Obviously, I think the sensational aspect of the case is more of a storm in a political teacup than anything else, and I couldn't give monkey's crap about that. What interests me is why these inconsistencies/lies/incredulities are not dealt with.

I would be a good deal more inclined to side with you and all the other folk who bought the Haneef t-shirt if it was not so transparent that Haneef is at worst insincere, and at best, self-righteous. You can also throw heartless into the mix, since I have not yet heard him utter one word of what might pass for genuine concern for those fortunate men, women and children who avoided being blow to smithereens by his family member(s). It's not a crime to be emotionless, but it would have helped to win me over.

Why don't you read the chat session transcript? Is this the reaction of a man who first hears of the attacks?  Why does it astonish people that the investigating authorities were deeply suspicious? If you and others are so inclined to pour scorn on the authorities for being Keystone in this case, why not go a step further and accuse them of not adequately getting him to admit the reason for such odd behaviour? Yes, I do think the authorities have stuffed up. Perhaps they should have hired the services of a professional actor or other student of human nature who would quickly tell you that it is impossible to behave in such a manner upon first hearing such news.

But this is hearsay. Pity it entirely junks his innocence plea - in my view of course.


----------



## cuttlefish (4 January 2009)

lucas said:


> The flaws in it are obvious to anyone with an ounce of reasoned thinking.



This is not a valid point - I can make the same subjective conjecture to the opposite - it is simply a veiled attack on my reasoning ability - an easy thing to resort to when unable to present further reasoned argument. But don't worry I'll ignore it. 




			
				lucas said:
			
		

> My investigations, admittedly, are not professional - I'm really only asking what I think are perfectly valid questions and pointing out instances of what can only be described as lies. Deliberate lies? Well, it would seem so. They cannot be based on all the evidence since I don't have access to it, but my arguments are not based on "second hand information". If you read the thread you would know that I have based my conjectures on the two extant police interviews, Haneef's own words quoted in the media, and on his own words in two TV interviews. I don't think I have claimed anything other than that he has lied. Obviously, I think the sensational aspect of the case is more of a storm in a political teacup than anything else, and I couldn't give monkey's crap about that. What interests me is why these inconsistencies/lies/incredulities are not dealt with.




Ok I'll accept for the sake of argument and without knowing the detail, that you've have formed a view based on reasonably objective/unbiased and credible information that Haneef may be disingenous, and I don't deny that this is possible.  Regardless my point still stands.  The purpose of the court system is to hear the evidence, and to only punish those (and protect society from those) where the evidence stands the test of a centuries old system that has been generally accepted by society as an acceptable means of managing and implementing the rule of law.   Haneef was not allowed to be subjected to this system because he was a possible 'terrorist'.   

Why is it valid to argue that it is ok to bypass this system for potential terrorists, but not ok to bypass it for drunk drivers or speeding drivers or potential axe murderers or anyone that has the potential to do a columbine or Martin Bryant sort of act?   At what point is a crime heinous enough and of enough risk to society that it justifies bypassing our legal system and risking peoples human rights and risking substantial punishment of the innocent.

To argue that the destruction of terrorism is so great that it warrants special consideration seems spurious given that far more Australian's died on the roads in this one year than the total Australians that have ever died in terrorist attacks.




			
				lucas said:
			
		

> would be a good deal more inclined to side with you and all the other folk who bought the Haneef t-shirt if it was not so transparent that Haneef is at worst insincere



   I didn't buy the Haneef T-shirt - I bought the "Human Rights and Fair and Tested Legal System T-Shirt".  All the Haneef case did was to expose the problems with the anti-terrorist legislation.


----------



## lucas (4 January 2009)

Please don't think I am attacking you personally because I disagree with you. It is not a veiled attack, but a logical criticism to make about an argument that confuses detention for past possible bad actions with detention for future possible bad actions. As far as I can make out , Haneef was being primarily detained because he was suspected of having broken the law - clearly a past action. You are also confusing the rights and possible wrongs of the detention period with the act of having his work visa revoked. Only the visa cancellation act was specifically intended to deter a potential future terrorist attack in this country. Ergo, the argument is interesting but spurious. 

Although others will disagree, I don't think it is particularly problematic to detain someone without charges while evidence is gathered (36,000 filing cabinets of documents, no wonder it took 2 weeks). I began my contribution to this thread by proposing - partly tongue in cheek - that it might be better to do as the French do and presume guilt before innocence, since that would bypass a lot of hot air about human rights and other such nonsense. (No, I am not against human rights per se; I am against the exploitation of the concept of human rights for absurd political purposes. You are welcome to have a field day with that, but let's not.)

If the authorities wish to accuse me of violating the law, I am perfectly willing to allow them their right to lock me up for a few days if I can have my day in court. Obviously, those few days are going to differ in number depending on the severity of the crime alleged. This is not a human rights issue so much as a fact of life issue. So Haneef was wrongly accused of committing a crime. So what? That happens all the time to every single successfully defended client in court. It's a pity it didn't go to court. If he was innocent, we can hope to have enough faith in the system to presume he would have been acquitted.

Instead we end up playing political football. If you want to argue that it is a human rights violation to detain without charges, then agitate to change the law. But I have already said that my interest is not primarily in that law and the apparent ****-up, but in Haneef himself and why he is less than credible. I'm still waiting for someone to produce evidence that I'm wrong. It probably exists, but I'll be waiting a long time I fear.


----------



## Happy (4 January 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Why is it valid to argue that it is ok to bypass this system for potential terrorists, but not ok to bypass it for drunk drivers or speeding drivers or potential axe murderers or anyone that has the potential to do a columbine or Martin Bryant sort of act?   At what point is a crime heinous enough and of enough risk to society that it justifies bypassing our legal system and risking peoples human rights and risking substantial punishment of the innocent.
> 
> To argue that the destruction of terrorism is so great that it warrants special consideration seems spurious given that far more Australian's died on the roads in this one year than the total Australians that have ever died in terrorist attacks.





It would be fantastic if we could prevent driver without license in unregistered and uninsured car from entering public roads or stop drunk getting on the road.

In case of possible terrorism plots we seem to enter unchartered waters, with our legal system based on committed crime and innocence until that crime is proven.

I understand that terrorism got unprecedented treatment because of possibility of multi-thousand casualties.

It is inevitable that mistakes will be made after all this is something new, as to this particular case there are possibilities, that authorities were simply wrong or outsmarted.


----------



## numbercruncher (4 January 2009)

> Originally Posted by cuttlefish
> 
> Well over 8000 Australians have been killed in motor vehicle accidents since 2001 - why haven't we introduced draconian legislation to address this problem?!?





As soon as we work out these are caused by fascist religous extremists im sure we will.


----------

