Dr Haneef

The comments of superfly and other Chinese whispers converts to the "facts" are totally out of kilter with the course of events and evidence presented to courts to date.
The AFP were able to "protect" information from public airing on the basis of ongoing investigations, and Andrews hid behind this.
It would seem that the incoming government has not been presented any credible evidence to form a view that ongoing investigations have gone anywhere in the past 5 months, or that Haneef is a person who should not be denied entry (return) to Australia. I am assuming the AFP will not be "hiding" its case against Haneef from Government, which I think is a reasonable inference.
The "children overboard" affair was run similarly by the then coalition government, and when forced into a Senate inquiry the truth was out:
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/Committee/maritime_incident_ctte/index.htm
The consistent bottom line was to not present the true circumstances in proper context, and remove anyone from positions of influence when that could be a problem.
Unfortunately in the Haneef case Crown prosecutors were sold a lie and the tainted fruits of that lie would scupper further legal proceedings.
Finally, if the "association" provisions of our anti terrorism legislation did not provide adequate grounds for a case against Haneef, the only laws that will, will strip away the reasonable protections we all enjoy today in Australia.

Superfly said:

So kind... except the people cut down in Bali or in New York will not get a chance to stand with you or with their families and forgive... so lets get back to the real world....

Click to expand...

The proliferation of terrorism and the exponential expansion of the muslim radical sect (and I make that distinction as the majority of muslims are good citizens) has a direct correlation with the arrogant miltaristic bullying of the US for the control of world oil reserves, among other things. Under the old Columbo Plan we had none of this and the world was getting on its feet, then along came Thatcherism and deregulation, the rest is history and the US is going broke cause they removed the checks and ballances.

If we are going to get onto your narrow and irrelevant correlations to the real world then we can really get onto some of the actual issues.

If you want, bring it on pal. And if the US are losing it, you are going to have to start making some new friends pretty soon as well

Its Christmas, I'm going for a whiskey

explod ... spot on (imo2) .....

here's mud in your eye :bier:

Superfly said:

You do not like it... then don't post on it, just go back to your May Day march with Rudd, comrade Chops.....

While we watch more tax payer money spent on this Indian Dr Haneef ....

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this sentence got through, but, one more time:

Christ, this thread reads like a remedial class transcript.

I would laugh very hard if Rudd was at a May Day protest with me. By the way, how much money you reckon ASSIO wasted taking photos of me? But you know, it's my fault people choose to spend money on me.

Superfly said:

You do not like it... then don't post on it, just go back to your May Day march with Rudd, comrade Chops.....

While we watch more tax payer money spent on this Indian Dr Haneef ....

Click to expand...

well, I'd just like to take this opportunity to say to any Indian doctors who might be reading this, that we don't all think like Superfly.


superfly - sure you're not just playing the race card with that last post ?
I personally think it was kinda weird justice that the race card finally brought Johnny Howard down (Jackie Kelly gang) - including losing his own seat (in a very multicultural electorate).

2020hindsight said:

well, I'd just like to take this opportunity to say to any Indian doctors who might be reading this, that we don't all think like Superfly.


superfly - sure you're not just playing the race card with that last post ?
I personally think it was kinda weird justice that the race card finally brought Johnny Howard down (Jackie Kelly gang) - including losing his own seat (in a very multicultural electorate).

Click to expand...

I hope that all Indian doctors don't think like Dr Haneef...Anyway, I work with a lot of Indians, most are great guys...

They do smell real bad though...lol... and many seem to lie on their resume when looking for work...

I'm out... Haneef should not be allowed back...

Superfly said:

They do smell real bad though...lol... and many seem to lie on their resume when looking for work...

Click to expand...

That's it. I'm barracking for the Indians this summer, simply because of the definitely non-racist Australian majority.

Tell me SF, do you happen to be from Camden?

Superfly said:

They do smell real bad though...lol... and many seem to lie on their resume when looking for work...

Click to expand...

Watch the racism please Superfly. It won't be tolerated here.

Fair warning.

Just to put things back on an even keel there (in terms of racial / religious aspects) ..
at the time of Haneefs arrest , I also had a beer with some Indian friends, one a Christian one a Moslem.

I told them of that visiting prof who insited he was innocent, and all three of us disagreed, i.e. he looked guilty as the original sin (pardon the blasphemy). They were both more critical than I was. The evidence (AS being reported) was just too much against him. BUT at that time we were being peddled the fact that his SIM card was involved in a bombing. !

Now as so often seems to happen with these things - everyone, including the AFP had been sold a pup on that one. (like, it was all bollucks) It was all someone's furtive imagination.

But the point I'd like to make is that my Indian friends were perfectly neutral on racial grounds, prepared to judge him fairly on the evidence - guilty when the evidence looked that way - and innocent since (presumably - I've actually never discussed it since with them). Certainly I have changed my mind as the evidence has come out (as have the AFP).

Much fairer etc than, say, USA would be (recall the OJ Simpson trial)

I'd also like to comment that Haneef will only come back to Aus if he can be sure of his safety, and, given some of the "trial by lynch mob" stuff, there I start to worry on his behalf

PS I was surprised to learn recently that there are more moslems in India than there are in Pakistan - negligible tensions these days

Superfly said:

1. No way should this guy be permitted entry.

2. Nothing to do with political parties,

3. he was fleeing the country,

4. the Federal Police acted for a reason

5. and one can not expect the Police to reveal all their methods or information as that may simply aid the terrorists...

Click to expand...

let's go back to your first post SF
1. strong statement - we await the reasons

2. you have since mentioned party political stuff many times - for your own reasons - maybe you're sensitive that the libs are possibly vulnerable here - the fact that Andrew's style (and Ruddock's, Howard's) are gonna get close review whatever -

3. he wasn't "fleeing" - he was leaving, but after telling his hospital he wanted leave, and ALSO after trying 3 times to ring the UK police on the morning of his flight.

4. main reason the feds acted was they'd been sold a bum steer that his SIM card was in a car that blew up in UK

5. no comment necessary. You can be sure if there was something there, then they (AFP) would have arrested him, and he'd be still under arrest. If not they are not doing their duty, and they'd be getting torn apart by media and populace alike.

As it is he is free to return if he wishes (with AFP's blessing).

So whence your conspiracy theory SF ?
I would say, it's good enough for the AFP , it should be good enough for you.

My 2c. Firstly, for all the conspiracy theorists out there, you should check out this link:
http://www.websurdity.com/2007/02/2...ions-was-the-death-star-attack-an-inside-job/

It might put things in perspective


About Haneef... I think there are merits to both sides of the arguement.

I think, the initial steps of the police were justified. If you had an overseas national, "leaving" the country acutely, with relatives overseas involved in a "terrorist" act, and he'd had some recent contact with them - I'd bloody well hope, that the police would isolate the individual and hold him securely to ascertain his motives.

Do I agree that the police should be allowed to hold anyone indefinitely without laying charges, or allowing them the right of representation - hell, no!

(On a side note, whilst I think The Chaser guys can be prats - I think they're APEC stunts were almost laudable. They highlighted that whilst you can impose the most draconian measures, if you have stupid people running the show, it will be to no avail.)

It's cliched, but it's a situation where the needs of the many (society) give way to the needs of the few (Haneef) - having said that, depriving individual rights is the start of the long slippery slope to depriving the rights of the masses...

You could also use Pascal's decision theory to support the police actions: If he wasn't a terrorist, the worst outcome was having a innocent person "imprisoned" temporarily. If he was, and he wasn't held, the worst outcome would be a lot worse.

I guess, the thing to see is that the benefit of being in Australia (and under it's government) is that we have the opportunity to question their actions. The old "quis custodiet ipsos custodes?"... well, it's all of us.

It may not seem fair, and "we" (as a country) may not get it right 100% of the time... but I think we do a damn sight better, than a lot of other places.


As for should he be allowed to come back - I guess so... but it is at his own risk. I certainly don't think anymore tax payers money should be spent on the extravaganza - if he doesn't feel safe, then he shouldn't come. I wouldn't feel safe going to Afghanistan/Iraq - I can hardly expect their respective governments to guarantee my well being, can I? Hell, there are certain parts of Sydney that are unsafe - but we can't all insist on police protection if one chooses to wander down dark alleys at 2am?

from Four Corners
program transcript "The Trials of Dr Haneef"
Reporter: Liz Jackson
Date: 01/10/2007

(I'm guessing that there would be 9 hours difference between UK and Qld in northern winter.)

a) Dr Haneef had been working at the Gold Coast Hospital on a temporary skilled workers visa, since September last year 2006

b) about 9 months later, Tues 25 June or Wed, Haneef's wife back in India has a baby, he finds out, after a few days, that there are some concerns - but he doesn't ask for leave yet..
MOHAMED HANEEF: My wife had delivered a baby just four or five days ago and the baby had some complications as well. She had jaundice earlier in this and I was getting worried about the baby when the baby got sick. So I mean, I always had a plan to come back. That was it.

c) 3.10pm Saty 30 June (just after midnight early Sunday morning Qld/ Gold Coast) - a burning jeep Cherokee packed with explosive material slammed into the airport terminal building in Glasgow, Scotland,

It was then engulfed in flames. Two men emerged. One was a British born doctor of Iraqi descent, the other was an Indian engineer, who doused himself in petrol, and set himself alight. ...Kafeel Ahmed and that UK police believe he was also involved in the car bombs defused in the centre of London, just the day before. (he later dies of his burns).

d) 10pm Saty UK (about Sunday 7am GC) Seven hours later, his younger brother, Sabeel Ahmed, was arrested in Liverpool, on suspicion that he had knowledge of the terrorist plot. -Found to have a SIM card that once belonged to Haneef. It still had credit - Haneef had given it to him, and had asked him to change it over, bu that was only partly done , i.e. it was recorded that the bills were to be paid by Sabeel Ahmed etc.

The Ahmed brothers were second cousins of Dr Mohamed Haneef.

e) British police (Tony Wenster) contacts Sabeel Ahmed's mother in UK. She in turn rings Haneef to say that the Police has found his SIM card on Sabeel Ahmed and he has been arrested. & that Haneef is to ring back Webster to clarify the SIM card. She doesn't mention any alleged link to Glascow etc, she cannot clarify any questions in Haneef's mind about why they want to talk to him about a SIM card "I... It didn’t blow up in my mind about all these incidents in Glasgow and things at that time"

f) [around this time there is some chat room activity with his rels - see para s) below]

g) 5am Monday, Brisbane, AFP police receive advice from UK “that a mobile telephone subscribed in the name of Dr Mohamed Haneef was linked to the terrorist attacks that occurred in London and Glasgow.”

h) Monday morning. Haneef applies for a short spell of leave to return to India.

i) Monday afternoon (2nd July) Haneef’s phone log says that he tried to ring UK police at 3:08, 3:29 and 4:32pm, Brisbane time, but the calls were unsuccessful. (6.00am 6.30am and 7.30am UK time. Monday morning) .

[strange they weren't answered when you think about it ?? - maybe the AFP had told em they were tracking him? no need to talk to him by phone etc - still it leaves Haneef confused]

j) [presumably about 5 hours later? 9.30pm?], Haneef arrives at airport by airport bus from Gold Coast to catch an 11.45pm flight to India - goes through Immigration and Customs, and was waiting for the my flight to arrive. Detective showed his identity ... placed under arrest for supporting terrorism, they said.

k) Dr Haneef was taken to AFP headquarters .... I had a good night’s sleep. Then in the morning they started the interviews again.

L)11.00am to 5.30pm on Tues 3rd Juy Detective Sergeant Adam Simms (Joint Counter Terrorism Team in Brisbane) and others interview Mohamed Haneef. - he is asked 1615 questions. He was asked if he wanted a lawyer and declined.

"my personal details and they also indulged a look into my financial aspects into.. of my transferring of monies, of my transactions. They were interested in my stay in UK as well as elsewhere since my since my graduation and where else I’d been working - my work history, what are my beliefs…

LIZ JACKSON: Dr Haneef told the police he was born in Mudigere, a town about 300 kilometres from Bangalore, and where he went to school. His father was a teacher and died when Haneef was 18-years-old. He and his family moved to Bangalore when he won a scholarship to medical college.

He graduated in 2002. In 2004 an Islamic charity leant him money to pursue his studies working as a doctor in the United Kingdom.

He had just one relative there at the time, his second cousin Kafeel Ahmed, a post-graduate engineering student, the man who drove the burning car into Glasgow airport. The police were interested in Kafeel Ahmed.


LIZ JACKSON: Why the one way ticket? Dr Haneef said that his father-in-law had booked the ticket for him, because Haneef was short of money.
MOHAMED HANEEF: I didn’t really specify him to book it a two way ticket or a one way ticket to me. I didn’t have money at that time. I said, I mean, I come and book the I thought... I come and book the return ticket anyway. There’s always uncertainty about a day or two when we... when I come back to Australia because it was a short period of leave which I had. So, it all happened in circumstances and they had taken it in the wrong sense.

LIZ JACKSON: You were asked if you wanted a lawyer and you declined. Why was that?
MOHAMED HANEEF: Well, I thought... I mean, I had nothing to hide that I I was just answering whatever questions they wanted me to ask. Whenever they finish my interview then they will let me go and there was nothing from my side as such.

LIZ JACKSON: At the end of the interview they didn’t let you go?
..... They wanted to check my laptop and other things. They wanted to clarify a few other things, so they said they would keep me in detention for two days - 48 hours. Well I agreed for that, and I believed in them.

LIZ JACKSON: Dr Haneef was placed in a cell in the Brisbane watch house, unaware that he was the first person in Australia to be detained under the 2004 anti-terrorist amendments.

Under the new detention powers there was potentially no time limit on how long Haneef could be held in custody, without being questioned, and before being charged as long as police applied to a magistrate to approve the extended detention.

m) 5 July Thursday afternoon
Three days in they told Haneef they wanted more time...... another five days. I mean that seemed a bit fishy for me and what was happening.

Then I thought I would need some legal assistance in this.

LIZ JACKSON: So late afternoon, the 5th July, the police at watch house got a lawyer for Dr Haneef.PETER RUSSO.

n) 5 July Thursday evening
LIZ JACKSON: Later that evening there was a brief hearing before Magistrate Jim Gordon, the same magistrate who’d approved Haneef’s first period of detention…

Peter Russo, his lawyer, was asked to leave the room while police presented confidential material to the magistrate.

Russo was invited back in to be told by the magistrate the order would be made, as the police sought, giving them another four days based on material that neither he nor his client had seen.

PETER RUSSO: This sort of situation where secret material was being given to a magistrate to make decisions about someone’s liberty didn’t sit too well with me.

LIZ JACKSON: Because?

PETER RUSSO: Well that’s not the way the system works normally in... I knew that there was legislation that allowed this to happen.

LIZ JACKSON: But that was the first time you’d encountered it?

PETER RUSSO: But that’s the first time that I’d seen it actually in action.

LIZ JACKSON: Police now had over 200 officers looking for evidence against Haneef, sifting through whatever they could find in bags from material taken from his apartment, his books, his papers, his phone records, all his financial transactions, and thousands of pages of material downloaded from the computer

o) .....days passed and Dr Haneef sat in his cell in the watch house, as his custody was extended again, and again.

There was no further questioning of him, and still no charge
but his lawyers were putting on the pressure to provide a good reason why.

p) 13th July 2007
LIZ JACKSON: After 11 days, Haneef lawyers and the police were back in court, due to hear another application to extend his custody further.

q) 4.15pm 13th July 2007
PETER RUSSO (to Liz Jackson): And then the second questioning period started about 4:15 in the afternoon, I think. And I was there for that.
It ran for 12 hours and 27 minutes.

(Liz To Peter Russo) Were there any significant new concerns that worried you in relation to what emerged in that interview?

PETER RUSSO: No, the only things that sort of, you know, that I was trying to get my head around was the financial aspect of it. That was very difficult to understand where that was going. I was trying to work out how much money are they actually talking about.

LIZ JACKSON (to Mohamed Haneef): So when the Police say they’re continuing to follow the money trail…

....

LIZ JACKSON: You did give money at one point to your Cousin Kafeel Ahmed?

MOHAMED HANEEF: No I haven’t given... ah, yeah that was that was actually to transfer money to back to back home to my India…

I transferred some money to him so that he could lend lend the same money back to India.

LIZ JACKSON: Do you think that might raise concerns about the connections that you had with Kafeel Ahmed the fact that 800-900 pounds went from your account to his account?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Well I don’t think so I I’ve clarified that with the Australian Police at the time.

LIZ JACKSON: Many hours were spent going over Dr Haneef’s account of the events that preceded his trip to the airport.

As Haneef told it the night before he learned his new born baby had come down sick with jaundice.

He’d been too busy to get leave from the hospital until the early afternoon of the following day.

Meantime he’d had a phone call about a problem with the SIM CARD.

And much later, he said, after his travel was organised, he’d learned from his brother this could be connected with Glasgow.

r)
It was late, at around 3am, that Dr Haneef told police that the SIM card issue was the second reason he left.

MOHAMED HANEEF: I mean the first reason, the main reason was to come back to my family and to visit my wife and my child. My child was a bit sick as well at that time.

LIZ JACKSON: When you say mainly… what was the other? When you say it was mainly for that reason what was the other reason?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Yeah, and the other things was this SIM card issue which was going on later, but these all these were these things were all circumstantial and they came up later and...

LIZ JACKSON: But that was the other reason you were leaving?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Yeah I mean.

LIZ JACKSON: The second reason?

MOHAMED HANEEF: The second reason but I... it wasn’t to escape or it wasn’t to abscond from the things as such.

LIZ JACKSON: The Police say that their suspicions were aroused because you left suddenly with half a days notice to the hospital, on a one way ticket out of the country, and you’d found out later in that day that possibly your SIM card had been used in an attempted terrorist attack?

MOHAMED HANEEF: I mean if they just say suspicion about what about what? What are they suspicious about?

LIZ JACKSON: That you were absconding, that in the face of fear about an association that your SIM card might have had with the terrorist attack that you’re not leaving to see your family, your new daughter, you’re absconding?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Ah, it’s clear from my interview as well as my from my records that I wasn’t absconding.

If I were to be absconding I wouldn’t have told the hospital. They have all the details with them. They have the number of my... the home of phone number, they have my address. I was leaving... I was travelling with my documents with me and I had all my proofs. I was not in a false identity going out leaving the country.

And I also tried to contact the British Police before I left the country. Even if I was leaving to the country what wrong I was doing? They could have easily traced me up here.

s)
LIZ JACKSON: Around 4am there was a series of questions about an internet chat room conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother.

The police had recovered it from Dr Haneef’s computer, but it was in Urdu.

They gave Haneef a translation they’d had done into English.

Much of it was stilted, some of it was garbled, and some according to Dr Haneef, wrongly translated.

(To Mohamed Haneef): But you agree that he starts by saying greetings is everything alright? He says you are not having any problems over there. Why would he be thinking that you’d be having problems?

MOHAMED HANEEF: I mean, he came to know about the SIM card issue earlier and then he also informed me to ring that... ring the British Police and he might have thought that I would have ah contacted him by then.

LIZ JACKSON: He said to you that they’ve made five arrests.

MOHAMED HANEEF: Yeah.

LIZ JACKSON: How did you know what he was talking about? He said there had been five arrests, two of them are doctors, one of them is Brother Sabeel. How did you know what he was talking about?

MOHAMED HANEEF: It was he just went to the BBC.com website at that time. And at the same when I was chatting there was a Yahoo window opened up and there was this news in the headlines and then I clicked on that and had to read that thing. There was this thing read to Sabeel that there was ah person... the doctor been arrested in Liverpool and such and such street and...

LIZ JACKSON: What do you say to the Federal Police who say that they believe that the chat room conversation indicated that you had some prior knowledge of what was going to happen?

MOHAMED HANEEF: No it was just an innocent conversation with my me and my brother.

If I had knew anything about I would have let the police know. I mean, I struggle for peace. I’m a Doctor and I (sigh)... it’s my profession and duty to save lives and not to take lives and my religion doesn’t teach me either these things.

LIZ JACKSON: Detective Simms suggested a quick break in the questioning at 4.42am, but then abruptly, it was over.
Time passed, and Peter Russo was worried.

PETER RUSSO: I said to Mohamed at that point "I believe the police are going to charge you Mohamed." I said, "they haven’t told me that yet but that’s my feeling of why they are taking so long."

MOHAMED HANEEF: ] I couldn’t believe at that time I... It was in any instance, it was just like a disbelief.

t) 14th July 2007
LIZ JACKSON: Mohammed Haneef was charged later that Saturday morning.

u) LIZ JACKSON: The charge was that Mohammed Haneef had intentionally provided resources, namely a SIM card, to a terrorist organisation, reckless as to whether it was a terrorist organisation.

His lawyers went to court to argue that the evidence was so weak that Haneef should granted bail.

Public prosecutor Clive Porritt was there to argue against it.

When the magistrate asked why someone would intentionally provide a SIM card to terrorists, knowing that in her words “it could be traced back to them”, the DPP’s Clive Porritt replied “perhaps in the expectation that the card would be obliterated in subsequent action. The sim card was found in the Glasgow car.”

This was simply false, but no-one who knew that publicly corrected him.
That’s no-one from the Federal Police.

v) STEPHEN KEIM: It was only corrected because London police sources got in touch with the Rafael Epstein of the ABC in London and so he corrected on AM on the Friday morning. Even then the AFP refused to comment for a couple of hours.

PROTESTER: Reckless use of a SIM card. The would be a Monty Python movie if it wasn't so serious.

w)
LIZ JACKSON: On the following Monday the magistrate released her decision.

Dr Haneef was granted bail.

PETER RUSSO: Well everyone was pretty happy and you know we felt that it would give us a real opportunity to ah sort out what was to happen next .

MOHAMED HANEEF: Well, I was a bit relieved after (laughs) getting bail that I would be back in the communities, get back to work.

LIZ JACKSON (to Peter Russo): And what happened?

PETER RUSSO: His visa got pulled by the Minister within I don’t know, a couple of hours I think.

x) 16th July 2007
LIZ JACKSON: At around 1pm the Minister for Immigration exercised his power under the Migration Act to cancel Mohamed Haneef’s temporary work visa, on character grounds.

KEVIN ANDREWS: I reasonably suspect that Dr Haneef has had, or has an association with persons involved in criminal conduct, namely terrorism.

LIZ JACKSON: This effectively put Dr Haneef straight back into custody, two hours after the Magistrate given him bail.

PETER RUSSO: I didn’t sit down and think you know "why have they done this?" But my immediate reaction was that well this you know this is this is now political.

LIZ JACKSON (to Stephen Keim): What did you make of the timing of the visa cancellation?

STEPHEN KEIM: No, that’s not something I’ll comment on.

LIZ JACKSON (to Mohamed Haneef): You believe the Minister did it to undermine the court’s decision to give you your liberty?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Well I think so.

KEVIN ANDREWS: My motive is to administer the migration legislation as I’m charged to do. And I have to do that by looking at the criteria in the legislation and applying the material provided to me by the Federal Police.

LIZ JACKSON: The magistrate had determined that Dr Haneef was neither a flight risk nor a threat to the community. Did she get it wrong?

KEVIN ANDREWS: Well I looked, as I said, at a separate provision in a separate law, and that was ah a character test. The parliament had seen fit to actually amend this piece of legislation to have a character test in there and to apply a test of a reasonable suspicion of an association of somebody with others engaged in criminal conduct. And that’s all I applied.

y) 18th July, 2007
LIZ JACKSON: Dr Haneef was taken to a maximum security detention unit at Brisbane’s Wolston jail to await his criminal trial.

He’d been there just nine days when the Director of Public Prosecutions announced that he’d reviewed all the evidence against Haneef, public and protected, and a mistake had been made.

The case against Dr Haneef would be dropped.

In a joint press conference with Police Commissioner Mick Keelty he told the media throng, the evidence wasn’t there.

DAMIAN BUGG, QC, COMMONWEALTH DPP: Where I believe that on the available evidence and the evidence that is reasonably likely to become available there is nor reasonable prospect of conviction, then I will discontinue those proceedings.

MOHAMED HANEEF: I would like to thank Mr Bugg for being so courageous in all the circumstances having had all the pressure on him and who has examined the evidence and relived the case and has come up with this decision.

LIZ JACKSON: Do you believe there was political pressure to charge you?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Well, there might have been, but I can’t really say for certain.

STEPHEN KEIM: The decision to charge was the wrong decision and it was a bad decision and it was always going to fall over. Why people made such a bad decision is something we all want to know and its something we all ultimately need to know

z) 28th, July 2007
LIZ JACKSON: While the dropping of the criminal charges meant Dr Haneef was released from jail, it had no impact on his immigration status.

Haneef was a man without a visa.

Faced with leaving voluntarily, or being deported, Dr Haneef returned to Bangalore, to his wife, his new baby daughter, and a welcoming throng.

Meanwhile, his lawyers lodged an appeal against Minister Andrews visa decision, a decision the Minister defends in the face of the prosecution collapsing.

KEVIN ANDREWS: I’m not required to judge his guilt or innocence. I’m required ah to determine... this is the responsibility of the parliament has given me as the minister to form a reasonable suspicion of an association with people engaged in criminal conduct and that’s what I’ve done.

continuing.. ( final - purpose in "copying" this ABC four crners article has been to add paragraph numbers so that the accuracy of facts / points can be discussed / disputed whatever)

aa) 31st July 2007
LIZ JACKSON: To bolster his case that there were grounds for his “reasonable suspicion” the minister went on to release some translations of exchanges from the chat-room conversation between Dr Haneef and his brother.

KEVIN ANDREWS: The brother of Haneef, Shuaib says “Nothing has been found out about you", and asks when Haneef would be getting out, to which Haneef replied "today”.

LIZ JACKSON: When the Minister says that your brother says to you "nothing has been found out about you" what context makes that not suspicious? Why would he be telling you that nothing has been out about you?

MOHAMED HANEEF: He was just referring to ah the news what he has got from the BBC website and he was must mentioning that there hasn’t been anything about you as such…

LIZ JACKSON: In relation to... Glasgow?

MOHAMED HANEEF: Yeah.

LIZ JACKSON: Why would you be thinking there was something about you? Why would he be reassuring you about that?

MOHAMED HANEEF: I mean, because Sabeel has been arrested and he had read the news in relation to this.

And he was just reassuring me about the news what he had read and I just went through the same thing in the Yahoo portal as well.

LIZ JACKSON: A lot of people will assume that if you reassure someone there’s nothing has been found out about you, that there was something to find out?

MOHAMED HANEEF: There wasn’t... there shouldn’t be anything that would er to be found out as such. He might have... he was just referring to the SIM card issue about and referring to the news articles which was put up in the in the website and it was just reassuring statement nothing as such.

ab) 21st August, 2007
LIZ JACKSON: Three weeks later the Federal Court found that Minister Andrew’s decision to revoke Dr Haneef’s visa, was wrong.

PETER RUSSO (to a media conference): We’ve won round one, and he understands we have to basically wait and see if we have to fight round two.

LIZ JACKSON: But the court also found there were grounds on which the minister could legally have done so.

Kevin Andrews has announced he’ll appeal the decision.

He says that he’s privy to further damaging information about Dr Haneef, that he can’t reveal.

KEVIN ANDREWS: I acted in the national interest and for the National security of Australians.

(To Liz Jackson) Some of the information which I have goes to the investigations in the UK as well as any investigation here. And what I’ve been told ah by the Federal Police Commission, Mr Keelty, is that the release of this information stands to jeopardise that ongoing investigation and indeed could even jeopardise in part the prosecution in the UK. So in those circumstances you know it would be irresponsible of me.

PETER RUSSO: I think it’s terrible that he keeps peddling these falsehoods.

LIZ JACKSON: You think that he’s lying?

PETER RUSSO: I don’t believe [siren] he’s got anything and I guess we should I mean I is he lying...? He could be in possession of information but that information can’t be correct, because if it is correct then the AFP have obviously done something fairly substantially wrong.

LIZ JACKSON: Spell out what you mean by that?

PETER RUSSO: Well they’ve a if Andrew’s has got material which says that a person’s committed an offence then why haven’t the AFP got that information and then why did we end up in the situation where the charges were dropped?

LIZ JACKSON: Peter Russo has recently gone over to Bangalore, to advise Dr Haneef, where he now stands.

PETER RUSSO: The next important step if the appeal.

LIZ JACKSON: Although Haneef won his case, his visa was not be restored to him, as the Minister has appealed to the full federal court,

PETER RUSSO: We have three judges to convince that our argument is correct.

LIZ JACKSON: A lot depends on which side wins the final round.

MOHAMED HANEEF: Going abroad for further studies anywhere in the world or to work for any other institution in the world or attending any conference. It all depends having a clear record.

I don’t have a job at this time and I’m just relying on my what I was savings and what I’ve done.

I was the sole carer for my family ah and my (sigh), my brother and my mother.

LIZ JACKSON: It’s three months since the attempted bombing of Glasgow airport.

Dr Haneef's cousin, Kafeel Ahmed, has since died from his self inflicted burns.

Sabeel Ahmed is awaiting his trial.

As the case unfolds the government is saying their stance will be vindicated.

2020, could I suggest (again) that you just provide a link to e.g. interviews rather than necessarily quoting the whole transcript. Ditto Wiki and Youtube.
Please?
We are all quite capable of clicking on the link if we are interested in pursuing it. The force feeding is really not necessary.

My understanding is that the Hospital knew he was leaving for a while to visit his wife, so he didnt do a 'runner'; he tried contacting the British Police on several occasions before he left to advise them of the sim card; as it was 'after hours' the person didnt return his call and when asked why he didnt call 'during work hours - GB time' he was already on the plane; and the Hospital in Qld said they would welcome him back!

I am so sick of 'privacy issues' and 'investigative methods' being used as an excuse to prevent the truth of a situation being told.

Superfly said:

They do smell real bad though...lol... and many seem to lie on their resume when looking for work...

Click to expand...

And any valid points you may have raised have just gone sailing out the door! And a 'lol' just doesn't cut it!

Julia said:

2020, could I suggest (again) that you just provide a link to e.g. interviews rather than necessarily quoting the whole transcript. Ditto Wiki and Youtube.
Please?
We are all quite capable of clicking on the link if we are interested in pursuing it. The force feeding is really not necessary.

Click to expand...

lemme get this straight Julia
You think I just cut and pasted that article?

you'll see I've tried to set it in correct sequence, and added paragraph numbers..

If you haven't noticed that,
then you haven't read the four corners transcript

If you haven't read the transcript, then obviously the last time I posted the link, you didn't bother to go there ..

so Julia

just don't read these long winded posts if you're not interested . ok

PS It is a multidimensional case - the first use of anti terror laws etc

imo,
It is just far far far too big a matter to simply put a link to a website.
If you disagree, then tell me the paragraphs (as I allocated them) that you would prefer to drop and/or to concentrate on ...

but please don't tell me that 2 hours work on my part has been a waste of time. (when you can as easily skip them if you're not interested).

These are the facts, and unless you are aware of them
you might get the answer wrong. end of story.