Dr. Haneef Damages Claim

[nulla nulla]

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

The laws that allowed this travesty to proceed as long as it did should be reviewed, amended and/or repealed.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

 

[lucas]

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

 

[cuttlefish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lucas]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[cuttlefish]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[lucas]

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

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

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

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

 

[Happy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[numbercruncher]

Originally Posted by cuttlefish

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

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