# Federal Police



## Julia (29 July 2007)

How do you feel about the Federal Police's handling of the Dr Haneef case?

Should he have his Visa reinstated?


----------



## tech/a (29 July 2007)

Who knows.

Is the "Truth" ever known in these circumstances?
From who's involved to the evidence---whats acceptable and whats not.
Clever arguement can supress fact.

You can be innocent and judged guilty or Guilty and argued innocent!


----------



## arminius (29 July 2007)

its a sad incident in aussie history.
it will all come out in the wash...the govt intervened in justice to boost polls. simple. 
one more bastion of national integrity destroyed.


----------



## justincase (29 July 2007)

This case just proves that the laws introduced by 'little johnny' and his party are for scare mongering.  The sooner we get rid of them the better.  Bring on the election.  
I don't think they could reinststate Haneef's visa.  That would be a complete backflip for the government.  Just remember they have information that they cannot release. (YEAH RIGHT).
It is a sad time to be an Aussie.


----------



## macca (29 July 2007)

To me it is simple, if that guy in Qld falsified the evidence then it is his fault.

If the Federal Police falsified the evidence then it is their fault.

Whoever deceived the powers that be, should be sacked for doing that.

I don't think in either case there is justification for resignation of a pollie, they would simply have to accept the word of the appointed experts.


----------



## chops_a_must (29 July 2007)

How was the press conference with the DPP right next to Keelty, with the former saying he was absolutely confident HE had done nothing wrong.

How many serious stuff ups is Keelty going to preside over? He has to go surely.


----------



## masterjunko (29 July 2007)

*Let's think like Little Johnny*
Election year, we are lagging in the polls. Need to think of something fast! Let me see... I did Tampa last time and it worked. I need something similar to scare the ignorant lemmings into voting for me... Can't blame all Australian muslins cos they will vote me out. Bingo! That doctor in QLD should do the trick. He's is a muslin and got a muslin name. Got cousins in UK and left his mobile phone SIM there too! Let's blame him for it!
*end of sarcasm*

Seriously this is a rather stupid and major stuff up. At least there is someone to correct the mistake of AFP and DPP. BUT who's going to correct the mistake of our immigration minister?!


----------



## chops_a_must (29 July 2007)

masterjunko said:


> Seriously this is a rather stupid and major stuff up. At least there is someone to correct the mistake of AFP and DPP. BUT who's going to correct the mistake of our immigration minister?!



The High Court.


----------



## trinity (29 July 2007)

> Who knows.
> 
> Is the "Truth" ever known in these circumstances?
> From who's involved to the evidence---whats acceptable and whats not.
> ...





Well said Tech/A.  I thought of the situation as, "damned if you do, damned if you dont".


----------



## moXJO (29 July 2007)

I wonder how they could stuff something like this up so badly.Considering this was pretty much the most public case of these new laws being used, and had so much media attention.Seems a bit weird they could get it so very wrong without someone picking it up sooner.


----------



## Pommiegranite (29 July 2007)

Okay..the following rant isn't just about the police, as I think the problem should be looked at in the bigger picture:

This whole affair has disgusted me. I feel sorry for the Australian citizens in that a great nation seems now to be a politically directionless puppet that has its strings pulled by the US.

The last time I visited Australia (1995), this country had an obvious identity of its own. Today, it seems as though it has an identity crisis eg. media, police. 

I left the UK last October thinking that *we* were following America's lead. However, this is nothing compared to Australia. At least the average Brit has a good winge about Britain being influenced by the 'Yanks'. Here, the average Ozzie seems to be confused as to what patriotism actually means.

Will the real Australia please stand up?


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2007)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/29/1991147.htm
About a week ago I had a beer with a fellow who had met the doctors with whom Haneef worked. - visiting lecturer of some sort. 

Anyway, he said that they were always certain of his innocence.
a) He had had his holiday booked for a long time
b) He had a one way ticket because it was cheaper to buy the return ticket there
c) they would welcome him back, absollllutely no problem !
d) He was being made a scapegoat

I played devil's advocate, and said that if that sim card he had given over was involved, (as the prosecution said in court), then he sure as hell had a case to answer.  

Since then, it turns out that the sim card WASN'T involved. 
Had they said in court "it COULD have been involved" then that would be different.. but to "make it up"...

I don't know why, But I'm reminded of when they found the blood under the dashboard of Lindy Chamberlain's car ( which was in fact anti rust protection)  ... When they want to convict, they will do so.

Then, what to do once they admit he is innocent - that those facts are just plain wrong - he's done nothing , apart from the fact that one of his close relatives is a bit of a worry. .... I would have thought that he could stay personally (just IMO)

Then again , my brother-in law would say "tell me a man's company, and I'll tell you his name" - he's a pretty autocratic sort of father btw lol.  (I'd hate to be tarred with his brush by the same token - by knowing him lol - probably be accused of being a bludy Fascist )

Does it depend on what he wants to do? - he seems to be happy now, no hard feelings?  Even thanks the Aussie people for their push for justice.......That at least we got right!  - and it's important!

Certainly the anti -terror laws have been criticised by top legal minds as nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction - hollow counterproductive etc.


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/28/1990751.htm
> Ministers accused of 'driving' Haneef case..Posted July 28, 2007 09:39:00
> 
> The terrorism-related charge against Dr Haneef was dropped yesterday after prosecutors abandoned their case amid revelations of mistakes in the case against him. ......In announcing the decision, Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) Damien Bugg QC admitted his agency had made two key errors as it built its case against Dr Haneef.
> ...


----------



## masterjunko (29 July 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> The High Court.




Technically yes.
Meanwhile you rot in a immigration detention center.


----------



## SevenFX (29 July 2007)

If anyone is interested, looks like 60minutes have bought his story, which is a story in it's self....(paying for certain types of stories).

It may be screening tonight on channel nine, think 7.30pm or whatever time they're usually on.

Hope their's not to many other poor Buggers wrotting away in jail, because of similar situtations to this one. 

Gotta Love them.... NOT.


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2007)

Pommiegranite said:


> Okay..the following rant isn't just about the police, as I think the problem should be looked at in the bigger picture:
> 
> This whole affair has disgusted me. I feel sorry for the Australian citizens in that a great nation seems now to be a politically directionless puppet that has its strings pulled by the US.
> 
> ...



Yes indeed!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2007)

You'd suspect that Rudd doesn't want to do anything that might somehow backfire (and who knows how, Tampa maybe?)  

Meanwhile also ACT Chief Minister says we should have Bill of Rights . 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/28/1990855.htm


> Haneef case prompts bill of rights call Posted Sat Jul 28, 2007 3:00pm AEST
> ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope says the Commonwealth's handling of the terrorism case against Mohamed Haneef shows that a national bill of rights is required.
> 
> The ACT Labor Government enacted the territory's own Bill of Rights in 2004.
> ...



Final point :-
Did anyone esle notice that as Haneef looked more and more innocent, so too did the nastiness of his cartoon charcter change ?  warmer more interesting colours, etc - even symmetrical lol? 
Here are a couple, the smiling one obviously the most recent 
To be fair, one is ABC, the second is Channel 9.
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=280072
Incidentally, just a chance that that will be on 60 minutes tonight I guess


----------



## Bushman (29 July 2007)

To be fair, some people in key positions (Damian Bugg, Peter Beattie) did stand up to the Ruddock/Andrews kangaroo court and Haneef is now free. This does give me hope in the robustness of the Australian judicial system.

I cannot wait to see the political damage control invoked that will try and 'spin' away the fact that Andrews beat his chest and revoked Haneef's visa. As always, all this posturing has to be seen in the context of the forthcoming election. Last time around it was the sickening 'Children Overboard' scandal. This time it is the 'Haneef character test'. Both 'stories' were eventually discredited but that is not the point. Rather this chest beating is intended to reinforce only one thing - the Libs are strong on border protection in a time 'terrorism'. Border protection dates back to the time of the 'Yellow Peril' and is ingrained in the Anglo Celtic Australian psyche. So even if it is found to be an abuse of judicial prudence, it reinforces to 'Joe or Joelene Average' that the Libs are the best at protecting his or her interests from the scary world out there. 

I really do hope that this charade does not work this time around. Being a South African by birth, I have seen the human rights outrages that can be perpetrated in the name of protecting the economic wealth for the powerful minority. 

Then again the national Labour party was very silent on this issue. New Labour is just the Liberal party in disguise.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 July 2007)

Yet another example of what's gone so tragically wrong with this country.

Australia in 2007 seems to be all about the almighty Dollar. Votes are bought with the promise of cheap credit and more cuts to public services or a boost to the corporate bottom line. 

Meanwhile our basic sense of justice and what is right gets thrown overboard. If the facts don't suit then just make them up.

It didn't used to be this way and it need not be now.


----------



## moXJO (29 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Meanwhile our basic sense of justice and what is right gets thrown overboard. If the facts don't suit then just make them up.
> 
> It didn't used to be this way and it need not be now.




Actually it was this way and a lot of innocent people went to jail. Think of the corruptions that use to go on in the police force with people being loaded with evidence so the charge would stick.

What makes you wonder is if this is how big a mistake they can make with the media spotlight on them how many innocent people are in prison that did not have the media and public interest in them.


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Yet another example of what's gone so tragically wrong with this country.
> 
> Australia in 2007 seems to be all about the almighty Dollar. Votes are bought with the promise of cheap credit and more cuts to public services or a boost to the corporate bottom line.
> 
> ...



Totally agree!

It seems the only thing that engenders community spirit is adversity or disaster. While I don't wish that on anyone, it will be the only thing that sorts this mess out. 

Over my lifetime I have seen that booms are only good for the hip pocket... and 'king lousy for everything else.


----------



## arminius (29 July 2007)

i'm hearin ya smurf.
and people wonder why i am so filthy with our government. at the most basic level, they are corrupt.

bring on the election!


----------



## nizar (29 July 2007)

WHat happened to Haneef is a disgrace 
The AFP have destroyed his reputation and his name


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Australia in 2007 seems to be all about the almighty Dollar. Votes are bought with the promise of cheap credit and more cuts to public services or a boost to the corporate bottom line.
> 2. Meanwhile our basic sense of justice and what is right gets thrown overboard.
> 3. If the facts don't suit then just make them up.
> 4. *It didn't used to be this way *and
> 5. it need not be now.



Smurf, 
I sure as hell agree on 1, 2, 3, 
disagree on 4 , and
agree on 5 lol - (worth more discussion)

BTW Rudd says (could be election timing involved) that he would do the same thing - true, a qualification "IF HE HAD THE CORRECT FACTS". ("easyout" and very valid IMO)

But as Henderson said on ABC this morning, not much would have been different wrt AFT and DPP. Maybe you are referring to the possibility that it is 
a) "being driven by pollies" 
b) "in election mode"?
c) That Labour would have reacted different to Libs. The actions of the Attorney Gen and Min for Immigration etc 
Not too many cockups occurred during Hawke's reign as I recall - you could be right  

as for 5. IMO , it is up to us to make sure they "do it right" if it happens again  Eternal vigilence (by votersl), whoever gets in lol.

Take the Rudd out of Ruddock you are left with "ock" ? "old, crustacean, k? - dunno


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2007)

wayneL said:


> Over my lifetime I have seen that booms are only good for the hip pocket... and 'king lousy for everything else.



interesting Wayne - I've only been investing for a year, so never thought of plotting morals vs "booms" before.  But ties right in with what I heard ex Labour Minister John Button say on ABC radio recently - that things are ok at the moment during good times - but workers will need much much more protection if things go downhill

Kneejerk reaction to terror threats?   Appropriate Border protection? 

we're plotting new territory, but would be nice to think that they took some top legal advice (most of which criticises current anti terror laws) - and did a bit more to push tolerance of local moslems who we will need on board (IMO)


----------



## Julia (29 July 2007)

tech/a said:


> Who knows.
> 
> Is the "Truth" ever known in these circumstances?
> From who's involved to the evidence---whats acceptable and whats not.
> ...




Interesting responses - thanks people.
Tech's (above) most closely expresses my own feelings.
Watching Dr Haneef interviewed this evening on "60 Minutes" produced the image of a very gentle person, who was very happy to be free and going home to his family.
I've been asking myself how I'd react were I in a situation similar to Dr Haneef:  e.g. going about my normal boring life and suddenly arrested by the AFP and thrown into jail.  Charged with offences which I could never have conceived of in my wildest imaginings.  What would be my response?
Total and absolute outrage!!!  Not quiet patience and finally gratitude to be getting on a plane out of here.

Now this could be just a reflection of different cultures and different personality types and I'm not in any way suggesting Dr Haneef is at all involved in terrorism, but wouldn't you be threatening to sue the Australian government or make some sort of gesture to show how seriously you regard the wrongful arrest if it were the case?

Just to be so passive about it all seems unusual.  But then perhaps being locked up for a few weeks removes the basic impetus to fight back?

Quite apart from Dr Haneef's reaction, I simply cannot see how Mick Keelty and Damien Bugg don't have a considerable case to answer for the charges being brought in the first place.  The fact that the charges have been dropped indicates simply - as they have said - that they don't believe there is sufficient evidence for the charge to be proved beyond doubt in court.
That is quite different from someone being proved innocent.

That being the case, the charge should never have been laid in the first place.  A monumental stuff-up by these two men which has definitely lowered my confidence in their capacity to care for the security of the country.

As far as political interference is concerned, if this has in fact occurred (and I'm not at all sure that it has), then both these gentlemen have yet another case to answer.  They are charged with acting impartially and without political interference.  I'd support the growing call for an official enquiry into the whole messy affair.


----------



## nizar (29 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Interesting responses - thanks people.
> Tech's (above) most closely expresses my own feelings.
> Watching Dr Haneef interviewed this evening on "60 Minutes" produced the image of a very gentle person, who was very happy to be free and going home to his family.
> I've been asking myself how I'd react were I in a situation similar to Dr Haneef:  e.g. going about my normal boring life and suddenly arrested by the AFP and thrown into jail.  Charged with offences which I could never have conceived of in my wildest imaginings.  What would be my response?
> ...




I agree wholly Julia.

I would definately sue the Government for defamation.


----------



## wayneL (29 July 2007)

Julia said:


> I've been asking myself how I'd react were I in a situation similar to Dr Haneef:  e.g. going about my normal boring life and suddenly arrested by the AFP and thrown into jail.  Charged with offences which I could never have conceived of in my wildest imaginings.  What would be my response?
> Total and absolute outrage!!!  Not quiet patience and finally gratitude to be getting on a plane out of here.
> 
> Now this could be just a reflection of different cultures and different personality types and I'm not in any way suggesting Dr Haneef is at all involved in terrorism, but wouldn't you be threatening to sue the Australian government or make some sort of gesture to show how seriously you regard the wrongful arrest if it were the case?
> ...




I have a very close friend who is an Indian Muslim. Watching Dr Hanneef, I reflected that I could very well have been watching my friend in his reactions.

Of course the private reaction would be very different, but the public face is different to the private face I have noticed.

This is not to say is innocent or guilty, just that it is very much cultural how Dr Haneef presented himself. Dignity in public is very important.


----------



## R0n1n (29 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Interesting responses - thanks people.
> Tech's (above) most closely expresses my own feelings.
> Watching Dr Haneef interviewed this evening on "60 Minutes" produced the image of a very gentle person, who was very happy to be free and going home to his family.




This is what I felt as well, BUT the case is so muddled that the real truth will never come out. 

Generally from my knowledge, there is evidence and you charge and arrest somebody based on it. In this case, they arrested him and then started to look for evidence. 

Also, the visa cancellation is based on the fact that he is associated with people in UK who have criminal background. Fair enough, BUT then we should also not allow Tony Blair in to Oz as well ,as his wife was involved in a business deal with that convicted con man Peter Foster. I guess there are seperate rules for average joe and these useless pollies.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 July 2007)

wayneL said:


> Dignity in public is very important.



yep critical, -  likewise the gravity of the potential insult.

As I understand it , this goes for all Indians - (hence their parents can vouch for their kids in arranged marriages etc) And one member can (to some extent) bring down a family - probably even worse that "loss of face" in Chinese society. (guess on my part) 

Still, (devils advocate) - he had no choice but to be defensive (and seemingly impossible to defend) when asked about his cousins where the evidence is apparently sky-high and unassailable 

I got the feeling that he understood why the AFP did what they did.
Asking for extra time to investigate international terrorism matters -? - gotta be ok as long as it's "reasonable".

As for the typical aussie response (changing subject, off topic etc) - I recall once telling a bar manager  that his establishment was one of the lousiest I'd ever been kicked out of


----------



## visual (29 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Interesting responses - thanks people.
> Tech's (above) most closely expresses my own feelings.
> Watching Dr Haneef interviewed this evening on "60 Minutes" produced the image of a very gentle person, who was very happy to be free and going home to his family.
> I've been asking myself how I'd react were I in a situation similar to Dr Haneef:  e.g. going about my normal boring life and suddenly arrested by the AFP and thrown into jail.  Charged with offences which I could never have conceived of in my wildest imaginings.  What would be my response?
> ...





Julia,
seeing his passive reaction,made me think that maybe he had been warned that just as his lawyers leaked information that should only have been released in court,he shouldn`t be surprised if some piece of information that the police couldn`t use suddenly found it`s way in the public arena,hence his happiness at going home.The case remains that even if he had  his holiday booked for months,he decided to leave suddenly without informing his employer,seeing as his wife was in India the cheap ticket could`ve been booked in India anyway,so no need to book from here.Something isn`t right with this story,maybe the AFP stuffed up,maybe the Brits stuffed up,seeing as they had their help and presumably were working togheter.Let`s hope that he is indeed innocent and doesn`t resurface as a killer as many of the released guantanomo detainees have done.


----------



## Duckman#72 (29 July 2007)

Pommiegranite said:


> Okay..the following rant isn't just about the police, as I think the problem should be looked at in the bigger picture:
> 
> This whole affair has disgusted me. I feel sorry for the Australian citizens in that a great nation seems now to be a politically directionless puppet that has its strings pulled by the US.
> 
> ...





I disagree entirely. 

I don't care if it takes 6 months for the AFP to look into someone's case before dropping charges relating to terrorist activities. This stance won't make me popular with conspiracy theory, tree hugging, Keating worshipping civil libertarians here at ASF. They get some wrong, they get some right, as in every case, in every legal system in the western world.

I'm with Tech - who knows the real truth?....but I'm not going to shoot down the AFP nor the Govt for trying to keep this country a safe place. Does that make me uneducated, brainwashed, naive and racist? Doubtless many here would say ..DAMN RIGHT.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> I disagree entirely.
> 
> I don't care if it takes 6 months for the AFP to look into someone's case before dropping charges relating to terrorist activities. This stance won't make me popular with conspiracy theory, tree hugging, Keating worshipping civil libertarians here at ASF. They get some wrong, they get some right, as in every case, in every legal system in the western world.
> 
> I'm with Tech - who knows the real truth?....but I'm not going to shoot down the AFP nor the Govt for trying to keep this country a safe place. Does that make me uneducated, brainwashed, naive and racist? Doubtless many here would say ..DAMN RIGHT.



I also disagree to a certain extent - if it went on for much longer ( after major errors were admitted) it would have been ridiculous, but at least they were fairly quick to admit said errors. 

6 months would be over the top surely
which means I've gotta address your other claims I spose ...

conspiracy theories - some good ones some bad ones - in the end, this was just about facts and errors - and admitted errors
love trees
certainly didnt worship Keating although he did many things right
civil liberties? yep.  where would we be without em . 



> They get some wrong, they get some right



guess you got 2 right and 2 wrong mate 
keep that up you'll have Keelty's job m8 lol


----------



## Bushman (30 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Does that make me uneducated, brainwashed, naive and racist? Doubtless many here would say ..DAMN RIGHT.




None of those. I would say entitled to your own opinion as we all are. 

There was a poem that I read at university by a Catholic priest in Germany during the Second World War that has always stuck with me. 

'First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists'
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.'
Pastor Martin NiemÃ¶ller 

I think the good pastor ended up in one of the labour camps when the National Socialists decided that Catholicism was no longer to be tolerated in 1940's Germany. *Now I am in no way saying that anything in modern day Australia is anything like the Third Reich. That would be absurd and disrespectful to those who suffered worse than any of us ever will in the course of that terrible human tradgedy.* I only quote the poem as it sums up how I feel about accepting the status quo when I see a government whose autocratic powers seemingly increase by the day. 

I cannot help but feel concerned when there seems to be a constant focus on 'us' and 'them', 'border protection', 'immigration detention' and the like. It's divisive and conducive to an erosion of civil rights. I especially do not like the terrorism laws and the lack of disclosure required from the government in these cases in the interest of 'national security'. I mean what does that euphimism mean?  

That's just me. Does that make me a tree hugging, civil libertarian. Sure does. We are all entitled to our political views and the coming election will be where we voice them. 

I will add that it is most certainly is a difficult and complex issue.


----------



## doctorj (30 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> I don't care if it takes 6 months for the AFP to look into someone's case before dropping charges relating to terrorist activities.



And if it were you or a loved one what was being held indefinately without charge and without contact with the outside world?


----------



## wayneL (30 July 2007)

Bushman said:


> None of those. I would say entitled to your own opinion as we all are.
> 
> There was a poem that I read at university by a Catholic priest in Germany during the Second World War that has always stuck with me.
> 
> ...



Good Post Bushman.

All,

I hope we can discuss this without disparaging those with opposing views.

Cheers


----------



## Kimosabi (30 July 2007)

Everything to do with the anti-Terrorism Laws are disgraceful.

The sooner 'Heil' Howard is out of office and we can get those Terrorism Laws repealed the better.

Once it is realised that 9/11 was an *'Inside Job'*, perpetrated by criminal elements of the United States Administration and Power Elite, the implications of 9/11 take on a whole new meaning.

The so called "War on Terrorism" isn't just a War on Terrorism, it is a War on all of our Civil Rights, Liberty's and Freedom's.

The sooner everyone realises the truth about 9/11 and understands the implications not only to their own personal Civil Rights, Liberty's and Freedoms, but also to their families and childrens future the better.

All of the indicators are pointing towards another major "Event" being perpetrated in the not to distant future. These "Events" always seem to coincide with poor popularity polls, and we currently have Howard and Bush drowning under a Tidal Wave of indignation.

So the next time we have a Terrorist Attack, think to yourself, could criminal elements of our own Government be behind these "Events". They always seem to be the ones that benefit the most from these "Events".

And before anyone decides to do the "Tin Foil Hat" crap, watch some of the Videos in this post first, you may be shocked by what you learn ==> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=184276&postcount=158


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 July 2007)

> All of the indicators are pointing towards another major "Event" being perpetrated in the not to distant future. These "Events" always seem to coincide with poor popularity polls, and we currently have Howard and Bush drowning under a Tidal Wave of indignation.



Absolutely agreed although I'm thinking more in terms of the financial markets than politics.

The financial situation now is alarmingly similar to that immediately before 9/11 with the added problem of oil. A terror attack would be the perfect justification for another round of rampant inflation to keep the markets going just as it was last time. If it results in enough grounded aircraft or some justification for releasing strategic reserves then that fixes the oil situation too.

Conspiracy? Let's see what happens as that will answer the question.

If people are frightened then one thing is certain. The terrorists have won.


----------



## Kimosabi (30 July 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> If people are frightened then one thing is certain. The terrorists have won.




Funnily enough, once you work out what is really going on you feel empowered...


----------



## Rafa (30 July 2007)

Am i the only one who feels sorry for the AFP...
These poor guys are only doing their job... but their ability to do it is continually being compromised by a govt keen play politics and try corner Labor.

If Andrews hadn't been directed to intervene for politcal reasons.. the AFP would not have been rushed into pressing any old charge with no hope of it sticking.

As its turns out, an alleged suspect has been freed, and amazingly been allowed to leave the country!

So much for a govt being tough on terror! 

The same thing happened with children overboard... the govt rushed out to the press to cease the political stage, before all the facts were known.

I got no problems with people being detained as long as possible so that the investigators can finish their job as proceed according to the facts, down the path of their choosing, not one that pre-mapped out by the politicians.

Is it just me, or is anyone seriously concerned with the erosion of the separation of power principle... the political, the administrative and the judiciary.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2007)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=185038

Rafa - it's not just you that's for certain
and I guess we're all "Keelty as charged" 
but since Scott Rush is sentenced to "curtains"
I'll find forgiveness read hard 

Keelty is not allowed to brag when he successfully gets informers into terrorist rings, and there have been some great results in Indonesia.

But I will have trouble forgiving him if Scott Rush is killed  
http://bulletin.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=280628
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world...ne-of-bali-nine/2005/10/12/1128796592231.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> Is it just me, or is anyone seriously concerned with the erosion of the separation of power principle... the political, the administrative and the judiciary.




Rafa. your point on political interference is a beauty.
One day maybe Keelty will publish?
"Keelty Tells All ..... Read All About it "!!  

changing the subject, but here's a poem I thought of as I was having a shave .. 
maybe triggered by the sight of blood lol. 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=185038&highlight=mosquitos#post185038


----------



## BradK (30 July 2007)

I am absolutely filthy on this Howard Government. The list just keeps on growing of disgraceful, racist, irresponsible, lying, f@!)CKing spin. 

BRING ON THE ELECTION. 

Here is one for you! Howard's refrain 'The people among us who want to do us harm' DONT EXIST!!!! Not before 2001. And IF they do exist, they dont exist because 'they hate freedom'. They exist BECAUSE OF THE ACTIONS OF THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT. 

It has taken me a while to come to this one. So, let me repeat it again. TERRORISTS EXIST BECAUSE OF THE POLICIES OF HOWARD AND BUSH.

I also used to think Keelty was decent. He is not. He is a government puppet and he should hang his head in shame. 

From what I can work out, Dr. Haneef was stitched up for something his cousin did. AND THEY REVIEWED HIS VISA. 

Look at what Howard's brother Stan did. SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN. And Howard's litany of lies. When will we wake up and call a spade a spade. 

Howard - Liar, Cheat. 

Not in our name
Brad


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Dignity all important ....yep critical, -  likewise the gravity of the potential insult......
> As for the typical aussie response (changing subject, off topic etc) - I recall once telling a bar manager  that his establishment was one of the lousiest I'd ever been kicked out of



Perhaps I should explain what I was getting at - 
Other ideas for an Aussie Tourism Campaign

PS is there any truth in the rumour that Abbott farewelled him at the airport , adding "we'd love to say sorry but , well , "**** happens!" 

Here's another equally irrelevant ......
Aust attorney general on spies The chaser


----------



## Spaghetti (30 July 2007)

Needs to be an inquiry.

Government says it has nothing to do with it. hmmm.

Their laws.

If the police were acting within the law then the laws need adjusting.

If the police were acting outside the law then appropiate action needs to be taken.

I would like to understand why Howard said he was comfortable with the detention when much of this country was not. Out of tune with the population. Seems to underline his lack of compassion and humanity.

I would like to understand Ruddock's extraordinary attack on the legal profession becoming activist. If the case had been allowed to run it's course without legal and media outrage then how long would have this man been held? How many others? He seems to be an extremist. I would prefer Turnbull in this role.

Immigration minister suggesting Haneef must be guilty of something, why else would he leave the country so quickly? What planet is he on?

I am concerned that Howard now stands and says he has no responsibility. Not surprised, have never known him to be one that can accept responsiblity for anything negative. 

Does lead me to a question about separation of powers. How can a government sit back and deny any responsibility when an obvious loss of civil liberty ocurs under their watch?

It is an important issue, difficult to fight terrorism when we act like the bad guys and not the good guys. Just picture our police wearing masks surrounding the crouching figure of Haneef.


----------



## BradK (30 July 2007)

If Howard had ONE shred of decency he would sack Kevin Andrews. Im not holding my breath. 

Andrews says that Haneef's leaving the country 'heightens rather than lessens my suspicions' 

He has just had a baby! He has been banged up for a month! In a country that has trampled over his human rights. 

Welcome to John Howard's Australia. Its getting scarier by the day. 

Brad


----------



## acooper (30 July 2007)

When in doubt send Home. We dont need Terrorists here in Australia. Its too late when people finally get killed and strange that 2 Cousins were involved.
acooper


----------



## Spaghetti (30 July 2007)

acooper

No we do not need terrorists in Australia. So why invite them?

Inciting hatred of our country will not lead to less terrorism afterall.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2007)

Get the Feds before they get ...agggh

Sadomasochism is never having to say you're sorry.


----------



## Prospector (30 July 2007)

My mother tells me that during WWII, people of Germanic extraction, who had even been born in Australia (South Australia was settled by Germanic FREE settlers) were rounded up and put into compounds, just because they had now 'become the enemy'.  Even Hans Heysen, a celebrated artist.

So this probably isnt a new reaction, just directed at a diffrent group of people.

I think the AFP were right in immediately arresting Haneef.  

But as their 'evidence' began to unravel they have treated him appallingly.  
Keelty has always had the smug look of being 'the authority and protector of our freedom' - well, that is now a lot of bunkum.  And we wonder why our youth doesnt trust authority?  Hell, I dont and I used to be one of them!

Seeing Haneef last night I said to teenage son he was either a damn fine actor, or a peaceful soul.  I am going for the latter.

And as for our immigation minister, well, I thought Rudd was (well, I wont say what I thought of him) but this man is far, far worse.

And heaven help us if we all get persecuted when our relatives, second cousins no less, do something wrong!


----------



## Rafa (30 July 2007)

i think you mean ruddock.... 

i just hope haneef remains a peacefull soul... 
if that was me, far out... i would not be happy chappy... 

imagine labelling john howard a worker entitlement stealer, simply because his brother did it...

oh...

wait a minute...
maybe some traits do run in the family


----------



## Duckman#72 (30 July 2007)

doctorj said:


> And if it were you or a loved one what was being held indefinately without charge and without contact with the outside world?




Sure I'd hate it. But what if they were guilty.

Maybe I have more faith in the system than others to get the right result.

And I didn't say indefinately...I said six months. No one is being held indefinately....not even in the Dr's case. 

One of my dislikes is for cases to be tried out in the media rather than through legal system. By both sides. As soon as someone is taken into questioning regarding an extreme charge the media demands to know all the evidence immediately. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think terrorists have manilla files at home marked "My Involvement in the London Bombings" and "Future Terrorist Activities for the Gold Coast". 

Sure there were aspects of this case that stink but the outrageous cries of political manipulation smack simply of political self interest. If you support Labor - that's fine but don't do what you are accusing others of doing - just turning every national event into political pointscoring.


----------



## BradK (30 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> One of my dislikes is for cases to be tried out in the media rather than through legal system. By both sides. As soon as someone is taken into questioning regarding an extreme charge the media demands to know all the evidence immediately.




Duckman, 

When the Government can NO LONGER be trusted with OUR civil rights and human rights (see Amnesty International Annual reports 2007) then it is fair cop for the press to step in. 

This government is now out of control. 

IF Mr Russo had not released the police interview to the media, than Dr Haneef would still be banged up. Media is our bastion of democracy when the government is becoming increasingly fascist in this emerging police state. Russo just knows what many of us expected all along. This government has NO RESPECT for the rule of law and will spin any situation. 

In the past few months we have had Aboriginal children overboard and Dr. Haneef. I dont have ANY faith in our legal or political system, but the media and the people of Australia are showing true democratic values by standing up against the Howard Regime. 

My study of history tells me it is time to be scared. Howard, Costello, Ruddock, Andrews, and Keelty are BAD NEWS. 



Brad


----------



## bingk6 (30 July 2007)

BradK said:


> If Howard had ONE shred of decency he would sack Kevin Andrews. Im not holding my breath.




Brad,

Agree totally with you regarding the disgraceful Howard government. However, this statement above puzzles me a little. In my view, Andrew's actions were the result of instructions from Howard. I find it very difficult to believe that Andrews initated actions to revoke the visa on his own accord, especially on the issue of national security - which is Howards pet topic as we approach an election.

If Andrew's action had resulted in a conviction, Howard will be first in line to claim credit. If Andrew's action did NOT result in a conviction, then yes, Andrews had better watch his back as Howard might then sack him for incompetence. Therefore if Andrews get the sack, it is not because Howard has a shread of decency, as he has none. Andrews could get the sack precisely because Howard has no decency whatsoever....


----------



## BradK (30 July 2007)

As I say Bing... welcome to John Howard's Australia. 

I went through Europe last year, and we have a reputation over there EVERY BIT AS BAD as South Africa during the Aparthied era. 

Australia is the BEST PLACE on earth to live - and that is coming from someone who is very well travelled. But our current regime should be ashamed of themselves. 

But they are so audacious they wouldn't know the word shame....


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2007)

Gotta feeling the system needs some time for some "flexibility".
i.e. Duckman's guess of 6 months between taking into custody and charging would be too long IMO ...
but (assuming I heard right) - Civil Libetarians are claiming that 3 days would be their choice - sounds a bit short.

(say a computer has to be taken apart - hard disk checked for erased files etcetc ). 

I'd guess at the (old?) UK model which (I think) has 28 days apparently (before recent talk of doubling it?) - 
Just some notes...

1. we are talking about the duration prior to charging ... 
2. after which a person can be held (till trial) with or without bail etc (Hicks had to wait 5 years to be charged btw) ...
3. If the duration is too short, then presumably they are forced to charge prematurely (is that a "premature Jack-in-traction"?)
4. and find themselves vulnerable to false arrest maybe?

I'm no lawyer - just guessing that's what's happened here - maybe someone can set me straight 

meanwhile, back at the ranch.. Haneef claims
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/30/1991369.htm


> The AFP has been totally politicised, compromised and discredited



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/30/1991369.htm


----------



## Rafa (30 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Maybe I have more faith in the system than others to get the right result.




Of the administrative (AFP), judicial and political arms, only one needs to make sure they look good in the eyes of the public... cause there is an election looming.

I would have more faith in the system if it was free from politcal interference. Heck, i'd have no problems with people being detained indefinitely as long as the appropriate checks and balances were in place to prevent abuse and manipulation.

I actually don't think the liberals have done anything wrong. I mean, their only job is to make sure they get re-elected.


----------



## Kimosabi (30 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> Of the administrative (AFP), judicial and political arms, only one needs to make sure they look good in the eyes of the public... cause there is an election looming.
> 
> I would have more faith in the system if it was free from politcal interference. Heck, i'd have no problems with people being detained indefinitely as long as the appropriate checks and balances were in place to prevent abuse and manipulation.
> 
> I actually don't think the liberals have done anything wrong. I mean, their only job is to make sure they get re-elected.




What everyone needs to remember is that the Howard Government has systematically filled the Public Service with 'Yes Men' over the years.

This is why the Howard continue's to manipulate these things politically...


----------



## Happy (30 July 2007)

Didn’t look through all posts and sorry if it was mentioned already, but lets not miss another possibility, that case was specifically prepared to discredit the authorities.

I am not saying that this was the case, just another possibility.


----------



## Julia (30 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Sure I'd hate it. But what if they were guilty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You've taken the words out of my mouth, Duckman.  Those who have suggested this episode has been simply created by John Howard are ignoring the initial event, i.e. the failed terror attempt in the UK.  Presumably the AFP would have been advised by the UK police of some connection to Dr Haneef.
It seems that initial advice was less clear than it should have been.
However, didn't the AFP do the responsible thing and stop Dr Haneef from leaving the country?  What would you have had them do?  Say, oh well, if there's any problem with this bloke, he's leaving anyway so we just won't worry about it.  That would hardly be responsible, would it?

So, what then?  It was reported that they had some 30,000 pages of documents to read, much of it not in English.  Didn't they have to hold Dr Haneef until they have some idea of whether he is in fact involved in some sort of terror relationship with his cousins?  I think they did.  But to hold him without charge was becoming unreasonable so they charged him with the only available accusation they could find at the time, and this turned out to be improperly based, given the location of the SIM card was in Liverpool, not in the burning vehicle as claimed.  So that's a stuff up for sure, and one for which the FP and the DPP need to take joint responsibility on the basis that I understand the AFP need the advice of the DPP that the charge will hold up in court.

The charge was not made, as has been claimed in numerous talk back shows and implicitly on this forum, by Kevin Andrews.  He is still saying today he wants to release information which will make clear to all of us his reasons for cancelling Dr Haneef's visa.  I hope he does, if such information in fact exists, because without that he is looking very silly indeed.

I may, however, be biased about Mr Andrews as I've loathed him since he was  responsible for overturning the Northern Territory's perfectly functional and legal euthanasia legislation some years ago.  His self-righteous attitude renders him incapable of objectivity imo.


----------



## Bushman (30 July 2007)

BradK said:


> I went through Europe last year, and we have a reputation over there EVERY BIT AS BAD as South Africa during the Aparthied era.
> 
> QUOTE]
> 
> ...


----------



## Rafa (30 July 2007)

Julia said:


> You've taken the words out of my mouth, Duckman.  Those who have suggested this episode has been simply created by John Howard are ignoring the initial event, i.e. the failed terror attempt in the UK.




Exactly, fully agree that he should have been arrested and held without charge... the trigger was certainly not created by howard.



> Presumably the AFP would have been advised by the UK police of some connection to Dr Haneef.
> It seems that initial advice was less clear than it should have been.
> However, didn't the AFP do the responsible thing and stop Dr Haneef from leaving the country?  What would you have had them do?  Say, oh well, if there's any problem with this bloke, he's leaving anyway so we just won't worry about it.  That would hardly be responsible, would it?




i don't think anyone is suggesting that, I certainly am not.



> So, what then?  It was reported that they had some 30,000 pages of documents to read, much of it not in English.  Didn't they have to hold Dr Haneef until they have some idea of whether he is in fact involved in some sort of terror relationship with his cousins?  I think they did.  But to hold him without charge was becoming unreasonable so they charged him with the only available accusation they could find at the time, and this turned out to be improperly based, given the location of the SIM card was in Liverpool, not in the burning vehicle as claimed.  So that's a stuff up for sure, and one for which the FP and the DPP need to take joint responsibility on the basis that I understand the AFP need the advice of the DPP that the charge will hold up in court.
> 
> The charge was not made, as has been claimed in numerous talk back shows and implicitly on this forum, by Kevin Andrews.  He is still saying today he wants to release information which will make clear to all of us his reasons for cancelling Dr Haneef's visa.  I hope he does, if such information in fact exists, because without that he is looking very silly indeed.




Julia, there are two separate events here... the terrorism charges, and then the cancellation of the visa...

I certainly have no problems in the way the former was handled, regardless that the charges were eventually dropped. That just shows the system is working.

I believe the police investigation should have been allowed to run its full course. If the howard govt didn't rush in with their grandstanding and posturing trying to show everyone they are tough on terror... and wedge labor at the same time, none of this would have been a issue. Surely, even you would agree that they tried playing politics with the case and use it as a wedge...



> Even more bizarrely, on July 26, the day before the case against Haneef collapsed, Andrews actually issued a press statement attacking the Opposition for supporting his handling of the case. In a real sense, this statement let the cat out of the bag. Failing to succeed in wedging one's opponents is doubtless frustrating, but shrewd politicians know not to let their frustrations show. By the time Haneef left Australia, the minister's utterances had begun to verge on the paranoid.




Some interesting articles in the Australian

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22153989-7583,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22155713-5013404,00.html

and finally, the Editorial
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22155504-16741,00.html


----------



## IFocus (30 July 2007)

Clearly the AFP / DDP have bungled the investigation and consequently laying of charges, for what reasons and at what level who knows but it’s a complete comedy.

OK so there are people out there who do intend to cause harm to Australians and its society I wonder after our government agencies botched a investigation into one man  how they intend to deal with the complexities of stopping such a threat? Throw in a desperate Government in election mode……. Can only hope our state police are up to it clearly the AFP are not.

Focus


----------



## Prospector (30 July 2007)

IFocus said:


> Can only hope our state police are up to it clearly the AFP are not.




Oh gawd, I give up!

And yes Rafa, too many Rudd's in this world!

Husband has just returned from China, US and Mexico for work.  At the Mexico border travelling into the US, he was asked what was in his luggage.  He said clothing and books.  The US immigration person called over his boss and said 'hey, have you ever heard of an Australian bringing in clothes to the US from Mexico?'  WT?  And these guys are responsible for security?  Then he got to LA airport to travel home.  The metal studs in his pants set off the alarms twice and that is a red flag.  He also had some travallen tablets in his pocket because he had, er, reacted badly  to some of the Mexican food.  So he got body searched; he was asked if he wanted to go into a private room but he figured he was better off being in public, and not in a room on his own, and as he had nothing to hide he just wanted to get it over with.  So he got frisked and searched and everything examined and inspected.  OK, I am cool with security but I cant help but think they have their radar pointed in the wrong direction.

I also found out today that you can take cigarette lighters on planes.


----------



## Rafa (30 July 2007)

its all for show prospector...
its all for show.


----------



## arminius (30 July 2007)

one of the most disturbing features of this affair was the planting of names in the blokes diary, and then interviewed about it. i have a theory which will no doubt get shouted down by some of the more conservative thinkers here, hi julia, but in time the truth (imo)may come out. 
one or two of howards minions got access to it, doctored it, and passed it on. when the interview details came out thanks to the brave and inspiring barrister, Heim i think, the buck was passed onto the AFP. they did it!
andrews at least must go. keelty probably as well, though i do feel a bit for him. 
the views of the majority here have restored faith in my fellow aussies.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 July 2007)

A Royal Commission or some other equally thorough investigation is the only way to get to the bottom of this in my view. Expensive but money very well spent. 

I strongly suspect that it would find, amongst other things, far too much political influence over the public service. 20 - 30 years ago it was the head of some department calling the minister into their office for a rather blunt chat as to how things work. Now it's the reverse and that's the problem - politicians do not in themselves have any real knowledge in the areas they are responsible for (with a few notable exceptions) but have gained far too much influence over day to day operations.


----------



## BradK (30 July 2007)

Honestly, and I say this with not hint of sarcasm - IF a Royal Commision were to be set up to investigate the Howard regime, we would be here for YEARS!!!!!! 

... and if done honestly, would probably end up in the Hague. 

Cheers
Brad


----------



## kwaka1 (30 July 2007)

I have seen many reports in the papers, internet etc.
To me, there are two questions (facts?) that have not been pursued in the papers or released as information in this saga.
1.
Did the hospital give him leave (or leave of absence without pay) to go home?
2.
Did the landlord of his unit agree (or know) that he was leaving the rental property?
To me, these are very pertinent questions that we do not know the answer.
Regards.


----------



## Julia (30 July 2007)

kwaka1 said:


> I have seen many reports in the papers, internet etc.
> To me, there are two questions (facts?) that have not been pursued in the papers or released as information in this saga.
> 1.
> Did the hospital give him leave (or leave of absence without pay) to go home?
> ...




I agree that both of these are relevant as to his intent.  It has been reported (don't know how reliable these media reports are) that neither his employer (Qld Health) nor his landlord had been told he was going away.
This is in contrast to him saying in the "60 Minutes" interview that all his friends, everybody, knew he had had the trip planned for some time.


----------



## Julia (30 July 2007)

arminius said:


> one of the most disturbing features of this affair was the planting of names in the blokes diary, and then interviewed about it. i have a theory which will no doubt get shouted down by some of the more conservative thinkers here, hi julia, but in time the truth (imo)may come out.
> one or two of howards minions got access to it, doctored it, and passed it on. when the interview details came out thanks to the brave and inspiring barrister, Heim i think, the buck was passed onto the AFP. they did it!
> andrews at least must go. keelty probably as well, though i do feel a bit for him.
> the views of the majority here have restored faith in my fellow aussies.




Arminius, don't know whether I'm necessarily a conservative thinker.  Just trying to be objective rather than allow political views to colour what may or may not have happened.

I agree that the planting of the names in the diary (the AFP fessed up to this) was a very disconcerting thing to happen.  All that did for me was make me wonder what else they might concoct to suit their own ends.

Yes, unless Mr Andrews can come up with some bit of magic with his hitherto unrevealed information tomorrow as promised, his presence as part of the Liberal team would seem to be on very shaky ground.  He has made a complete fool of himself.  Re Mick Keelty:  he has turned out to be a disappointment in that he appears to possibly be vulnerable to manipulation. Pity.  I'd always regarded him as a person of substance.

Did anyone see Phillip Ruddock interview on the 7.30 Report this evening?
I'm a fan of Kerry O'Brien's but I did think it was a bit unreasonable to ask Phillip Ruddock to justify Kevin Andrews' behaviour.

This whole sorry affair has brought no one up smelling of roses.
To those who have pilloried the Howard government and laid the blame for this at their feet, are you suggesting that a Rudd government would have ensured a different outcome, particularly in view of the fact that Rudd endorsed every move the government made?


----------



## Prospector (30 July 2007)

kwaka1 said:


> I have seen many reports in the papers, internet etc.
> To me, there are two questions (facts?) that have not been pursued in the papers or released as information in this saga.
> 1.
> Did the hospital give him leave (or leave of absence without pay) to go home?
> ...





Well, question 1 would really clear the air, wouldnt it, so why hasnt the answer to this question been made public?  Surely it would be in the DPP's best interests to do so.  So we have to draw our own conclusions as to why this is the case,

Question 2 - He says he was only going for a visit and had planned to return; one way tickets are often cheaper to buy OS, so he wouldnt tell his landlord about his trip.

Also from hubby's trip, coming back from LA there was a bit of a disturbance on the Qantas flight just before he left.  Seems that around 130 passengers had got onto a plane they thought was destined for Brisbane, but was actually going to Sydney (or maybe vice versa).  Took Qantas a while to work out whether the passengers were in the wrong plane, or the plane was going to the wrong place.  Now, given that the attendants had 'checked' everyone's boarding pass as they entered the plane and allowed to board, so much for security.  Yes Rafa, all for show!


----------



## arminius (30 July 2007)

i think rudds actions need to be understood in the context of domestic politics. there was a chance here for howard to stick a big nasty wedge between his 'safe' leadership and rudds 'terrorist harbouring' inexperienced leadership. another tampa.
big kev wants to send a message to those who will probably vote for johnny. he knows he has everyone elses vote. everything to lose, nothing to gain. 
in saying that i was hoping he would stand on the rooftops and give both barrels, but any politician worth his salt would do exactly the same i reckon.
the libs are trying to smear him because he didnt indicate how he would do anything different!! you're no good kevin because you are the same as us! the libs are sloshing around the fetid dregs of the political barrel searching in vain for a gasp of oxygen. if the whole thing wasnt so shameful it would be hilarious.


----------



## disarray (30 July 2007)

BradK said:


> Honestly, and I say this with not hint of sarcasm - IF a Royal Commision were to be set up to investigate the Howard regime, we would be here for YEARS!!!!!!
> 
> ... and if done honestly, would probably end up in the Hague.
> 
> ...




more drama please.

i like john howard because he is a dogged little bastard and he speaks his mind. compared to england or america i think we are charting a solid course through the 21st century.

the police botched the haneef case, partly because of political pressure, partly because of mismanagement, partly becaue of stupidity and partly because of excessively enthusiastic application of the new terror laws, but the fact remains we have jihadis in our midst. short of expelling all muslims, which is neither practical nor fair, we must pay the price of tolerance with liberties.

for the most part i blame america. their foreign policy enrages me with its blind greed, ignorance of world affairs and utter stupidity, but we have a duty to stand by our allies so we find ourselves mired in american muck yet again. some public criticism of american policy by the government would be welcome, but unlikely.

finally i have seen tampa mentioned a few times. while tampa was messy, and it was yet another object lesson why you never believe anything you are told, it did have the positive outcome of maintaining our territorial integrity. but i am an ends justifies the means kind of person, i'm sure many others disagree.


----------



## Spaghetti (30 July 2007)

On the question on whether he just took off from his job.

No, he asked for leave and was told only if he could cover his shifts. It was no secret disappearing act.

Dissaray

No excuse to support the US. None at all, In fact under Geneva convention if yu support an occupying force you still have the obligation to question motive, strategy etc. No excuse just to be blind supporter. But then we don't give a fig about international treaties anymore.


----------



## disarray (30 July 2007)

there were valid reasons to support the invasions of afghanistan and iraq, however the government does seem to be blindly supporting america without properly criticising their motives - i agree with you there.

as for international treaties, they rarely mean anything to anyone, i don't know why you are so surprised.


----------



## Duckman#72 (30 July 2007)

Up until recently I had been very critical of Mr Beattie's views on the Haneef case as I didn't think he was appropriately qualified to pass comment. However his latest ramblings have changed my views completely........I believe he said that the "whole saga has been shambolic from start to finish".

Now if _any politician in Australia_ is qualified to talk on "*shambolic sagas from start to finish*" it is our favourite little media tart. You name the crisis...Health, Education, Water, Police....(I see the Qld Police Union has resorted to taking out TV ads urging the State Govt to spend more money on police resources).

Perhaps Johnny could ring our wonderful premier and reuse one of his speeches....."I'm sorry". From memory I think he used that one for...water, council amalgamations, education, police inquiry etc etc etc. 

Exit stage left please Peter........I for one can't stand to see you on the national stage when your section of the nation has more problems than you can poke a stick at. 

Duckman


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 July 2007)

disarray said:


> there were valid reasons to support the invasions of afghanistan and iraq, however the government does seem to be blindly supporting america without properly criticising their motives - i agree with you there.




The motives are one and the same!


----------



## Julia (31 July 2007)

Duckman#72 said:


> Up until recently I had been very critical of Mr Beattie's views on the Haneef case as I didn't think he was appropriately qualified to pass comment. However his latest ramblings have changed my views completely........I believe he said that the "whole saga has been shambolic from start to finish".
> 
> Now if _any politician in Australia_ is qualified to talk on "*shambolic sagas from start to finish*" it is our favourite little media tart. You name the crisis...Health, Education, Water, Police....(I see the Qld Police Union has resorted to taking out TV ads urging the State Govt to spend more money on police resources).
> 
> ...



Totally agree, Duckman, but do you really think the current opposition represents a credible alternative????


----------



## Duckman#72 (31 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Totally agree, Duckman, but do you really think the current opposition represents a credible alternative????




Absolutely not.

The old adage "a strong opposition makes for a strong government" comes to mind.

There is nothing to like about the current Lib/Nats in Qld. They just crawl around in the dark, making no sense, and being of no use to anyone. That the opposition has failed to grasp a toehold in the electorate after years of incompetence and community discontent speaks volumes for the current standing of their respective organisations.

The sad thing is I honestly think that apart from Beattie and Bligh, the talent in the Labor ranks isn't much better. 

Peter Beattie is just like the Policeman at a busy intersection, busily waving his arms around, yelling "....nothing to see here people, move along, move along...." and trying to avoid the spotlight from shining on any one accident for very long. Unless it is the accident on the next Federal street corner in which case he diverts all traffic to the disaster.


----------



## Rafa (31 July 2007)

Julia said:


> are you suggesting that a Rudd government would have ensured a different outcome, particularly in view of the fact that Rudd endorsed every move the government made?





the thing is Julia, the only reason the govt cancelled the visa was to try and wedge labor. Andrews pretty much admitted that in his tantrum a couple of couple of days back. Alas, Rudd is a strong supporter of the terror laws.

To me, thats where this whole issue begins and ends.

As for the investigation, or the terror laws, i have no issue with any of that. They are there for a reason, and as long as politicians don't pressure to AFP for a favourable outcome, then they don't have to rush their investigations and try to come up with soem frivolous charge that cannot hold water...

who knows, howards attempted wedge may have actually resulted in a terrorist walking free...

compare this to if the AFP were given time and freedom to go about their investigation... within the scope of the terror laws, they would have either built a water tight case, or absolved haneef of all guilt.

As things stand now, we will never know the truth! 

I can only go on track records, but i would hope rudd would NOT so willingly use people as pawns for polical gain in the same way howards done with asians (late nineties), asylum seekers (2000), children overboard / tampa (2001), etc, etc...


----------



## visual (31 July 2007)

visual said:


> Julia,
> Something isn`t right with this story,maybe the AFP stuffed up,maybe the Brits stuffed up,seeing as they had their help and presumably were working togheter.Let`s hope that he is indeed innocent and doesn`t resurface as a killer as many of the released guantanomo detainees have done.




A few days ago I said this,

now the ABC reports that likely scotland yard passed on the wrong information,re-the sim card.So having being led down the wrong track whose to say what the AFP actually found for themselves,no wonder the good doctor went home meekly,he was probably punching the sky as he went,on top of that now the second doctor questioned has been found as not having the resume he claims,the mind boggles.
Still it`s always good to know that so many people will try and reintrepret information to suit themselves,frankly so far I feel safer knowing the AFP are on the ball than wanting to cover themselves in false glory.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (31 July 2007)

After having read this whole thread I suspect that if an asteroid hits earth and kills millions that will somehow be blamed on Howard too. Flame away.


----------



## mark70920 (31 July 2007)

MS+Tradesim said:


> After having read this whole thread I suspect that if an asteroid hits earth and kills millions that will somehow be blamed on Howard too. Flame away.




I think if an asteriod hit the Earth little Johnnie would be looking at ways to try to blame the state governments.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (31 July 2007)

mark70920 said:


> I think if an asteriod hit the Earth little Johnnie would be looking at ways to try to blame the state governments.




If you really believe that, I think you've gone a long way towards demonstrating my point in a round-a-bout way.

I found some other events that are also no doubt linked to Howard's "machinations":

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/07/31/1992413.htm?section=justin

http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/07/31/1992367.htm?section=justin

And no more from me. This thread is beyond description.


----------



## moXJO (31 July 2007)

Wow some of you guys really get your undies in a knot over Howard. When I see you out there in R/L campaigning for human rights I will take notice. Otherwise your part of the society that Europe or where ever bad mouths about, the percentage that doesn’t really do anything substantial except forum bash. Well worse you whine at those that admit they don’t care or know the full story and are doing nothing themselves.

This whole saga was stuff up, but let the full story unfold completely. Straight out venom and hatred or points scoring is not a quality I could care about, in fact it makes Howard look better then what he is.


----------



## Prospector (31 July 2007)

moXJO said:


> When I see you out there in R/L campaigning for human rights I will take notice. .




Well, I for one marched against the 'future invasion' of Iraq.  I think at the time Johnny called us ignorant trouble makers.  Except that I found myself marching with mums, dads, grandparents, teachers, priests, students........  I am no church goer, but as the march passed each church (in Adelaide we have them on every corner, opposite the pubs) the church bells were tolling for us.  Very moving!  Well, we were moved but I guess the PM wasn't!


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 July 2007)

visual said:


> ....now the ABC reports that likely scotland yard passed on the wrong information, re-the sim card. ......
> 
> frankly so far I feel safer knowing the AFP are on the ball than wanting to cover themselves in false glory.




just thinking about the Sim card question (and only that part of your post , visual) ...  and guessing that the AFP (and Scotland Yard ?) will no doubt be more careful in future...
. 
When I saw that car, I thought "How would they know where that particular sim card originated, if they found it in a burning vehicle" ?   Isn't there a fair chance that the plastic would have pretty much melted?  I mean , that phone was not gonna be much use after than fire 

So (maybe - just maybe) they guess that its the same as the one they believe that MH gave his cousin(?) And after that they find the actual Simcard elsewhere (?)  And then its too late because they've acted too early. (all conjecture on my part).

So you'd have to bet that they'll be more careful in future.  (no conjecture there surely)
And insist on their maximum time for investigating before arresting yes?

Like, Perry Mason could crack these problems in a couple of minutes - but since he died, the case-crackers probably need a bit longer. - maybe?  

I think the current policy is that the AFP can use up 7 days investigating - then extend another 7 days etc , pretty much ad infinitim ( again someone might set me straight here ) .

Is that reasonable? - A rolling time limit ( which in effect is unlimited?) 
Provided it needs judicial "umpires" approval at each extension of time? 
"Score tied after one week - let's go into extra time" sort of thing?

Only if the Judiciary are arm's length from the pollies . yes?

As well as maybe an upper limit of ?....X days ? 28? 56?

Just thinking aloud here.

Keelty always comes across as almost mild-mannered.  Quite reasonably explains that computer drives have to be examined, international time zones have to be considered etc - - all good points - providing yuo are looking for "a couple of weeks" - rather than "a couple of months" (or years as the case may be.)

PS good for you Prospector for marching so early in the episode  I was still just at the "seriously confused" stage - and had yet to hit "seriously alarmed" stage (as I recall).  
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=88790&highlight=clocks#post88790

PS Moxjo - suppose I didnt march i.e. "vote with my feet" - do I get any forgiveness points if I simply "vote"?
What's the difference between a placard on the street , and one posted on the web?


----------



## moXJO (31 July 2007)

Prospector said:


> Well, I for one marched against the 'future invasion' of Iraq.  I think at the time Johnny called us ignorant trouble makers.  Except that I found myself marching with mums, dads, grandparents, teachers, priests, students........  I am no church goer, but as the march passed each church (in Adelaide we have them on every corner, opposite the pubs) the church bells were tolling for us.  Very moving!  Well, we were moved but I guess the PM wasn't!




Well done Prospector. I was with 2020 at the "seriously confused" stage.


----------



## moXJO (31 July 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> PS Moxjo - suppose I didnt march i.e. "vote with my feet" - do I get any forgiveness points if I simply "vote"?
> What's the difference between a placard on the street , and one posted on the web?




Ok first off I'm not saying you first must be involved physically to take the moral ground in every discussion. Lets face it ,its a forum board here. But for the amount of time ,emotion and effort some of you put into your posts ever thought of actually doing something yourselves?
And is it so wrong to say that if your going to preach something or tell people how morally wrong they are then I'd like to see a little effort on your part.

2020 did you petition for Hicks, write off to the pollies ,get involved with any support groups?. If not , why not ?(serious question, because you went to a lot of effort with your posts) .Now I was not pointing the finger in your direction. Simply that if people want to lecture(not you ,and not really that bad on this forum) about how horrible Australians have become then I hope they are doing more for these causes then the people they are complaining about.

The difference between a placard on the street , and one posted on the web is real effort compared to armchair critic laziness and the fact you miss out on a sense of community spirit when you do become involved. Everyone has to vote so "vote with my feet" is a bit of a jip statement considering both sides of government suck.And you are made to do it,so its not of your free will

Not a flame 2020 I enjoy your posts. Mainly because you have a very different viewpoint then mine on a lot of subjects. This all sprung up because I was on a jobsite with a Hardcore Howard Hater today and it was a headache to say the least .So a bit of a vent on my part


----------



## cfollett (31 July 2007)

So have opinions changed now the "chat room" information has been released?

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/andrews-reveals-haneef-details/2007/07/31/1185647893695.html



			
				theage said:
			
		

> He said an internet chat room conversation that was monitored by police revealed the afternoon before Dr Haneef's "attempted hasty departure" form Australia aroused suspicion.
> 
> "In it, the brother of Dr Haneef said: 'Nothing has been found out about you' and (he then) asks when he would get out, to which Dr Haneef  replied 'today'," Mr Andrews said.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.com.au/news/stories/2007/07/31/1993348.htm



			
				abc said:
			
		

> He says in the conversation, Dr Haneef's brother says, "nothing has been found out about you", "have you got permission to leave work?" and "tell them you have a newborn daughter".
> 
> Mr Andrews also says, in the conversation, which took place the day before Dr Haneef tried to leave Australia, the doctor's brother asks, "when are you getting out?" To which Dr Haneef replied, "today."


----------



## chops_a_must (1 August 2007)

moXJO said:


> Ok first off I'm not saying you first must be involved physically to take the moral ground in every discussion. Lets face it ,its a forum board here. But for the amount of time ,emotion and effort some of you put into your posts ever thought of actually doing something yourselves?
> And is it so wrong to say that if your going to preach something or tell people how morally wrong they are then I'd like to see a little effort on your part.
> 
> 2020 did you petition for Hicks, write off to the pollies ,get involved with any support groups?. If not , why not ?(serious question, because you went to a lot of effort with your posts) .Now I was not pointing the finger in your direction. Simply that if people want to lecture(not you ,and not really that bad on this forum) about how horrible Australians have become then I hope they are doing more for these causes then the people they are complaining about.
> ...



I don't know if that's really a valid point.

In 2003 I helped storm the Uni senate building, "Jimmy" open the liquor cabinet and drink hundreds of dollars worth of the tens of thousands of dollars worth of liquor in there. After all, that's what my fees pay for isn't it?

I've also been beaten up by horsepigs, in regards to the Iraq war protests. I've done many other boring things as well.

But does it give me the right to look down at people more than anyone else? I don't think so. Because in many people's eyes, I'm a terrorist. And probably... technically am...


----------



## wayneL (1 August 2007)

cfollett said:


> So have opinions changed now the "chat room" information has been released?
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/andrews-reveals-haneef-details/2007/07/31/1185647893695.html
> 
> ...



The ABC radio at least gave a countering argument from some chap from the Law Council. Basically he said the conversations were "equivocal" and as such was very weak circumstantial evidence.

Without ALL the facts, not saying innocent or guilty, but there is a load of spin surrounding the whole saga... which is to be expected these days.


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 August 2007)

cfollett said:


> So have opinions changed now the "chat room" information has been released?



I've just finished work - but - yes, that makes interesting reading no question , thanks cf



moXJO said:


> The difference between a placard on the street , and one posted on the web is real effort compared to armchair critic laziness and the fact you miss out on a sense of community spirit when you do become involved.




Hey moxjo - the other difference (between street demonstration placards, and posts on chatrooms) is that you get to read the full quote lol - compare the following :-

the placard on the left (shaped like a dove) says 







> " Those who give up freedom for security will get neither"




Here's the full quote from Benjamin Franklin as relayed from Wayne on "terriers win" thread...


> Originally Posted by Benjamin Franklin
> Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.



now imagine tryin to fit all that on one placard 

I add some more photos including a couple that suggest that just because it's a demonstration doesn't make it right.  (Guess the same could be said about a post in a chatroom lol)

But I have to plead guilty to most of your other accusations. 
Couple of questions to the ether (not really expecting a reply - answers are obvious)  

1. do you think the "chat room" will one day take over (to some extent) from public demonstrations?  
2. No question that big brother is listening - after cfollett's post , yes?


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 August 2007)

Lol then of course there's ole PP &M 


> A tribute concert to Harold Leventhal



Have You Been To Jail for Justic - Peter, Paul and Mary


> HAVE YOU BEEN TO JAIL FOR JUSTICE
> 
> Was it Cesar Chavez? Maybe it was Dorothy Day
> Some will say Dr. King or Gandhi set them on their way
> ...



 Peter, Paul & Mary - Washington Peace March - 1971
"The answer is doh-ing in the wind" as Homer Simpson would say 


> Peter, Paul and Mary performed on April 24, 1971 at a peace march in Washington DC. The anti-war march was to protest the Vietnam War. They sang "Blowing in the Wind" and "Give Peace A Chance



References to Martin Luther King etc 

Looking at that , I think people went along for the company - - no fun smoking alone as they say


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 August 2007)

SSDM = same **** different millenium (as the bumper sticker says)
EARTH FIRST !!! (we'll mine the other planets later) 
Earth is the insane asylum of the universe etc etc


----------



## BradK (1 August 2007)

Ooppss.... Now that the Federal Government is pulling chatroom stuff as evidence, let me be the first the acknowledge the WONDERFUL contribution of the Howard Government in the last 11 years in the areas of housing, indigenous affairs, border security, national security, economic well-being, etc. 

I didnt mean to say any of that earlier stuff about Howard, Keelty and co. I was being facetious. And what would I know?? I DONT have all the facts like the fuhrer. 

Welcome to John Howard's Australia 

Brad


----------



## Prospector (1 August 2007)

Nelson Mandela was jailed for 'crimes against the state' - terrorism!

You know, after the WMD fiasco, 'women overboard', etc, I just dont know who to trust anymore!

And Brad, that is, sadly, exactly the truth!

There is new legislation pending which permits police to monitor suspicious people without warrants.  Isn't the fact they are already monitoring chat rooms proof they are already doing this?  Why bother with the law, it is already happening!


----------



## Julia (1 August 2007)

Why is information derived from chat rooms any different in validity from any other source, e.g. phone calls?  Didn't the people concerned still say what they said, regardless of the medium?

I'm not making any judgments on the content in this instance but am puzzled about the above.

Yesterday I was in a discussion about this subject with some people who just escaped with their lives on September 11.  They described how previously they'd given scant thought to the realities of terrorism, but on 11 Sept that all changed.  How are all of you who ridicule the current measures supposed to protect us against at least some of the potential threat going to feel if our power supply is destroyed, the Harbour Bridge blown up etc etc, with the loss of possibly thousands of Australian lives?

And before you again blame the Howard government for increasing our exposure to terrorism via Iraq etc, yes I agree entirely, but that's done now and we have to cope with whatever it has engendered.

What would you want the government to do?  Just ignore any possibility of terrorism actually affecting Australia directly?  Pretend it couldn't happen?
If not, then if those of you who have so vehemently criticised the current measures could outline just what you think should be happening, I'd be most interested.


----------



## Spaghetti (1 August 2007)

Haneef lied about why he left Australia. He left because his family were told he was being hunted down by police who said his sim card was used in terrorism. So his character did not stand up in the eyes of Andrews.

To demonstrate good character he should have allowed himself to be arrested, held in detention and charged with false crimes.

My view of the Federal Police has improved, my view of the government has plunged.

If reacting badly to false information demonstrates a lack of character then they stand accused of the same failing.


----------



## robert toms (1 August 2007)

If some of my telephone conversations were taken  in isolation,and out of context,I am sure that I would be in serious trouble...not the least with my wife.
That is why,if people really want to get to the bottom of this ,all of the information should be revealed.However ,I bet that this never happens.
Remember when people were ringing talkback during the anti-boatpeople campaign saying that "some of these people have got money ,you know".
Anyway my daughter rang her local federal MP and got the same line...I  got involved and got past the staffer to the MP.They could not supply me with one example of boat people having money...This was a dishonesty ...invented to vilify desperate people...Until we know the full story I suspect that Andrews and the government are probably involved in the same type of vilification.
This mob have form !


----------



## Spaghetti (1 August 2007)

Exactly Robert Toms.

Even with this story if you build a story around it with what we know the conversation takes on a whole new meaning.

Haneef receives a phone call from India saying British police are looking for him as his mobile phone was used in a terror attack in Glasgow.

Haneef calls the detective on the number supplied and there is no answer..4 times. This has been verified.

He panics. 

His was either guilty or afraid of being accused of being guilty. The chat room transcript does not disclose which.


----------



## Rafa (1 August 2007)

Julia said:


> If not, then if those of you who have so vehemently criticised the current measures could outline just what you think should be happening, I'd be most interested.




I have never critisised the measures, just the lack of separations of powers by a govt trying to gain some political points...


Julia, these couple of articles in the Australian are worth a read... (excerpts below)

Editorial: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22168310-16741,00.html


> On what was released to support the minister's decision late yesterday, Mr Andrews has either embellished an online conversation, the significance of which can be discounted from what is already known from elsewhere, or he has let a potential terror suspect walk free. Either way, it does not let Mr Andrews off the hook.
> 
> The big question remains why did Mr Andrews get involved. The Australian was critical of the length of time Dr Haneef had been kept without charge but rather than advocate a trumped-up charge, or that his visa be revoked, we said he should be released and kept under close surveillance. By getting involved, Mr Andrews raised the case to a cause celebre. And on Friday, after police and the DPP had given up on the prosecution of Dr Haneef, Mr Andrews dug the Government in deeper claiming his reasons for cancelling the visa remained valid. But the following day, immigration officials allowed Dr Haneef to return to India where he has cast himself as a victim. Mr Andrews' strategic blunders have been compounded by sloppy mistakes on detail as he has continued to cast aspersions on Dr Haneef while stalling on the release of the information on which he made his decision. Mr Andrews eventually released details of an online conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother expressing urgency that Dr Haneef return home following the London and Glasgow terrorist attempts. *But we know that Dr Haneef was already aware that police in London had found his SIM card and that he had tried to contact them four times to explain.* In light of Dr Haneef's record of interview, the information relied upon by Mr Andrews was not considered significant enough by police to put before the court. Scotland Yard had also lost interest in Dr Haneef.
> 
> ...






http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22169370-5013404,00.html


> Haneef is also guilty of receiving an internet chatroom message from his brother Shoaib in Bangalore, who was concerned that the family's sole breadwinner would be unjustly linked to the failed terrorism plots in London and Glasgow because of the connection to the SIM card.
> 
> *But we already knew this. Haneef had volunteered it to the police in his first interview on July3, a record of which was subsequently leaked to The Australian.*
> 
> ...


----------



## visual (1 August 2007)

robert toms said:


> If some of my telephone conversations were taken  in isolation,and out of context,I am sure that I would be in serious trouble...not the least with my wife.
> That is why,if people really want to get to the bottom of this ,all of the information should be revealed.However ,I bet that this never happens.
> Remember when people were ringing talkback during the anti-boatpeople campaign saying that "some of these people have got money ,you know".
> Anyway my daughter rang her local federal MP and got the same line...I  got involved and got past the staffer to the MP.They could not supply me with one example of boat people having money...This was a dishonesty ...invented to vilify desperate people...Until we know the full story I suspect that Andrews and the government are probably involved in the same type of vilification.
> This mob have form !





Robert,
you claim all the information should be revealed,yet the relevant people say,we have on going investigations and don`t want this revealed.
Are you saying that you need to know trumps Australia need to stay a safe country?The guy and his cousins were kicked out of an Indian mosque because even for them they were too loony and dangerous.


----------



## Spaghetti (1 August 2007)

Visual

His second or third or twice removed cousins were kicked out of a mosque. I have not heard Haneef was.

He may be guilty of something and evidence may well be required to be kept secret. So how does Andrews releasing flawed information assist anything?  But having released a little he should release it all. Otherwise it is vilification.

The government is the one going around judging him as guilty, not the police. I have heard rumours the police are LIVID at government interference in this case. How can it help the police find out the truth if our government is going around playing silly buggers?

Yet they say they prove it, yet they do not. Then they say it is only to prove that he lied about why he left the country and that is enough to revoke a visa. This is true because immigration have this type of power. But many people, yourself included, have taken this to mean he is guilty and the government is wonderful to save us from such dangers. They have achieved their objective. To win votes. How people keep falling for this after so many times before though is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## visual (1 August 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> Visual
> 
> His second or third or twice removed cousins were kicked out of a mosque. I have not heard Haneef was.
> 
> ...




Spaghetti,
unlike you I don`t have access to the police and what they think,you probably haven`t heard about the mosque incident  becasue the media is playing silly buggers and report things very unevenly.This report for example I heard about just once,the other thing that is no longer being reported is what the Glasgow suiced bomber was saying as the witness was trying to put out the flames engulfing him,yep alla allah.I ask you why?It sure strikes me as a bit of self imposed censorship.


----------



## Spaghetti (1 August 2007)

Well then you should be angry that the British police have no interest in Haneef nor want his extradiction.

You should be angry our terror laws are so pathetic we rely on immigration law to keep us safe. You should be angry this man has his freedom.

Doesn't seem you are???


----------



## Julia (1 August 2007)

Rafa said:


> I have never critisised the measures, just the lack of separations of powers by a govt trying to gain some political points...
> 
> 
> Julia, these couple of articles in the Australian are worth a read... (excerpts below)



Rafa, my irritation wasn't directed at you at all.  Your comments have been realistic, as is your point above, which I agree with entirely.

I was more asking the question of those people who have been critical of the general tenor of the terrorism laws and mocked the need for them just what they would suggest instead, i.e. just pretend it's not a threat (or perhaps they genuinely believe Australia is immune from terrorism on our home ground) or, if they concede there just might be a threat, how we should attempt to protect ourselves.


----------



## petervan (1 August 2007)

More people are going to die innocently from somebody killing themself on the road than from a terrorist attack here.Why are you not screaming to keep suicidal people of the road.It would then become an overblown safety arguement run on politics of fear.Enjoy life while you have it and stop believing this politics of fear..Just a personal opinion


----------



## cfollett (1 August 2007)

Had a caller on ABC radio help clarify the chat room text which i quoted yesterday.

He basically said that some of the words which seem bad may have been a translation issue.

eg. the word for "leave" is the same as "get out" even though they have different meanings in English.

Another caller said he was an Indonesian language export used as an expert witness for translation in drug related cases. Basically he said he could easily translate things either good or bad direction, depends what he wanted.


----------



## chops_a_must (1 August 2007)

Julia said:


> Rafa, my irritation wasn't directed at you at all.  Your comments have been realistic, as is your point above, which I agree with entirely.
> 
> I was more asking the question of those people who have been critical of the general tenor of the terrorism laws and mocked the need for them just what they would suggest instead, i.e. just pretend it's not a threat (or perhaps they genuinely believe Australia is immune from terrorism on our home ground) or, if they concede there just might be a threat, how we should attempt to protect ourselves.




Just goes to show you can have all the laws you want, but if you have people that are totally incompetent in essential social services (as is the case throughout all police forces) then it doesn't matter in the slightest, because they can't even do the basics correctly.


----------



## chops_a_must (1 August 2007)

Geez. Is Keelty a retard? Because if he isn't, he's doing a stand up job of impersonating one.

And as a side note, Howard has unveiled a new immigration minister. It's the Emo RLY? owl!









> KEVIN ANDREWS: Well, Ali, why didn't he have a press conference before he left Australia?
> 
> ALI MOORE: Why do you think he didn't?
> 
> ...




Awwww DIDDUMS Kevin. Who's my poogyly oogyly poor little man?

But to answer your questions: 1) Because he is a civillian; 2) he's not accountable to the public like _you_ are meant to be; 3) the feds surely asked him enough questions in 2 weeks; 3) thanks to the fed's leaks, we will know everything soon anyway; 4) if the cops can't remember whose notes are whose in whose diary, then how reliable are Australian journo notes going to be?

But remember Kevin, it's up the road, not across the street.

Catch ya at Wesley Church sometime.

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## wayneL (1 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> 3) thanks to the fed's leaks, we will know everything soon anyway;



...and more


----------



## visual (1 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Geez. Is Keelty a retard? Because if he isn't, he's doing a stand up job of impersonating one.
> 
> And as a side note, Howard has unveiled a new immigration minister. It's the Emo RLY? owl!
> 
> ...




Which then makes his Indian press conferences redundant,wouldn`t you say.


----------



## moXJO (2 August 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I don't know if that's really a valid point.
> 
> In 2003 I helped storm the Uni senate building, "Jimmy" open the liquor cabinet and drink hundreds of dollars worth of the tens of thousands of dollars worth of liquor in there. After all, that's what my fees pay for isn't it?
> 
> ...




Yes but it shows you are actively worried about the issues outside this forum. Not just out for political points scoring against Howard in every thread without really caring about the underlying issue. It has nothing to do with looking down at anyone or justifying yourself online. Simply take a look at yourself before having a go at general Australia.


----------



## Sprinter79 (2 August 2007)

There is soooooo much circumstantial evidence in this case, and anyone who knows anything about court proceedings would know that it is pretty much worth nothing. 

That was probably the reason why the case was thrown out of court. The fact that the police (state or feeral) had to fabricate evidence to strengthen their case just speaks volumes.

As for his character, that's a different story. They only need circumstantial evidence to form that opinion. Doesn't mean that its right, all it takes is for the minister to form that opinion, even if it is based on dodgy, incorrect and inaccurate information. 

I'm pretty sure many many Australians would be in trouble if we had to go through the same checks that immigrants (workers or others) had to go through. I've definately partaken in Industrial Terrorism in the past, and would do so again, so send me out to Christmas Island already, I need a holiday.


----------



## Happy (2 August 2007)

It almost looks that police should let everybody do what they want to do, and if there is failed attempt, do nothing until it is done properly.

Then sift through the ashes for 6 months or so, to make sure that families get whatever’s left of corpses of their loved ones not somebody else’s.

True meaning of innocent until proven guilty?

It almost looks that our democratic rights stop anybody to prevent anything from happening.


----------

