Federal Police

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.

Click to expand...

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.

The Australian strongly supports a tough line against anyone suspected of associating with terrorists. We still despise David Hicks. We, more than anyone, drew the attention of authorities to Jack Roche. But if ever there was reason for the Government to feel embarrassed at how it has handled a serious issue, this must be it.

After failing on the introduction of Work Choices, Mr Andrews has reinforced our view that he is a political buffoon. The fact that Mr Andrews' actions on Dr Haneef are motivated by the potential for political gain is given away by his complaint that the Opposition had not criticised his decision.

Click to expand...

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.

He had told police he was worried about being framed over the card, and that he had tried to contact a British counter-terrorism police officer four times before trying to board a flight to India on the evening of July 2.

And he told Australian police in that first interview how Ahmed's mother had been concerned that the police discovery of the SIM card, which had once been in Haneef's name, would inevitably lead to the police being interested in Haneef.

But do fleeing terrorists try to contact British police investigating terrorism attacks? On four occasions?

Click to expand...

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 !

Click to expand...

Spaghetti said:

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

KEVIN ANDREWS: I'm just asking the question. You say, he's had numerous press conferences in India, the question is he did a paid interview with a television station before he left Australia. Good luck to him if he wants to do that.

ALI MOORE: But you think he has something to hide?

KEVIN ANDREWS: I'm answering your question. You say he's done numerous press conferences in India. I think the Australian people would think, well, why didn't this bloke actually turn up and front the Australian media and let them ask questions like they've been asking me all week and you're asking me tonight.

Click to expand...

chops_a_must said:

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

Click to expand...

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!





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.

Click to expand...

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?

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...

Click to expand...