Federal Police

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?
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.

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?
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.

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.

Cheers
Brad

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).

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

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...

Federal Police

Rafa

IFocus

You are arguing with a Galah

Prospector

Not a scaredy cat anymore

Rafa

arminius

Smurf1976

BradK

kwaka1

Julia

In Memoriam

Julia

In Memoriam

Prospector

Not a scaredy cat anymore

arminius

disarray

Spaghetti

disarray

Duckman#72

Wysiwyg

Everyone wants money

Julia

In Memoriam

Duckman#72

Rafa

Similar threads

Federal Police

You are arguing with a Galah

Not a scaredy cat anymore

In Memoriam

In Memoriam

Not a scaredy cat anymore

Everyone wants money

In Memoriam

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency