In yet further evidence that due process is a bulwark against the arrogance and incompetence, not to say potential police statery, of intelligence agencies, it turns out that the core piece of evidence against Dr Haneef, the Indian doctor being detained by the Australian government against the law, is wrong.
The prosecutor alleged that Haneef's SIM card was found among the wreckage of the bombed out car in Glasgow. It turns out that it was intact, in one of two mobile phones, in Liverpool, held by his cousin Sabeel Ahmed. Ahmed is not charged with anything other than not informing the authorities about the plot. This means that Haneef has been held over two weeks for giving his cousin a mobile phone he did not need and not for "providing support for terrorism".
It now transpires that in a democracy, you cannot give away unused mobile phone credits. Who knew?
Oh, and because his work visa has been revoked by the minister on the grounds that he is not of good character, even if he is acquitted of all charges, as it increasingly looks like he will be, he will be deported. Are we past the Kafka Barrier yet, folks?
- Log in to post comments
The Americans have it worse.
The Liberal Party is looking more like a circus every day. I also need to start thinking about moving to New Zealand before they come after me. After all, chances are that I've lent, given or bought something from somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who knows somebody who is involved in terrorism.
Ever get the feeling that the main work of our "intelligence services" consists of nothing more than an endless game of Six Degrees of Osama Bin Laden?
Can you expect anything different from a country who treats transexuals like convicted criminals where passports are concerned?
if you learned the difference between democracy and parliamentary monarchy, the course of public events would be less puzzling.
horthy, mussolini, franco, and salazar all came to power in parliamentary monarchies, hitler in a parliamentary republic not much different from oz.
ozzies award themselves the title of 'citizen' in a 'democracy' with no legal or customary basis. whether the mistake comes out of ignorance or shame doesn't matter, reality is getting ready to bite them in the bum.
I wonder if President Bush et al have read A Man for all Seasons?
I have, and I am not making this up, less than six degrees of separation from Hitler. The parents of a late, very lamented friend were born in Germany. They were also Nazis (her parents, not her). When she was very young, they returned there for a visit. During that visit, she was introduced to the evil one and shook hands with him.
The family returned to the U.S. and I believe my friend's father, who was a pharmacist, may have been imprisoned during WWII for being a Nazi or some kind of fascist activities, although I am somewhat vague about that. Her parents were, AFAIK, U.S. citizens and were not deported back to Germany for their despicable ways.
Naturally, my friend went on to become an atheist, progressive feminist whose second husband was Jewish.
As a long-time fan of big band swing I can claim less than six degrees of separation from one of my favourites, Glenn Miller. When I was much younger, a close friend introduced me to his music teacher so that I could learn the clarinet. This teacher had played in a British army band during WWII that had been detailed to play at a welcoming ceremony for Miller's US Army Air Force Band when it arrived in the UK. The British band featured a smaller-than-usual version of the trombone in its brass section which the teacher played. Miller, a trombonist himself, was intrigued by it, asked to take a look and played a few notes on it.
Until this piece of evidence was confirmed, it would have been a mistake to release him.
If he had been let go, and the SIM card HAD been in the bomb, there would have been Hell for the Govt. to pay.
DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENTS THAT PLAY BY "THE RULES" ARE HELPLESS AGAINST TERRORISM.
A terrorist is not like your average criminal; guilty until proven innocent is the only safe way to handle suspected terrorists.
When and if we finally let someone go under public pressure from the liberal left, and that person turns around and blows Australian civilians up, I will expect that liberal left to step up and say that this is the price we pay for justice. If it is not willing to do that, it should shut up and let ASIO, the AFP and the military do their jobs as they see fit.
You can have a high degree of freedom from risk of attack, or you can have a judicial process that bends over backwards to be fair, but you cannot have both. And knowing the propensity of selfish people to leak information to the media, it seems you cannot run a secure operation these days either. Hardly what our anti-terrorist forces need.
Can you imagine the outcry if this guy had been a terrorist and we'd let him slip away?
Democratic governments that don't play by "THE RULES" have already lost to terrorism.
This is a ridiculous statement. The problem here is that you have bought into the Bushite notion that terrorism is a form of warfare, that it is a fundementally different kind of violent act than, say, armed robbery or extortion.
Terrorism is a criminal act. It ought to be treated like one. Treating these people like enemy combatants and agents of foreign hostile regimes is completely wrong. It leads to a wartime ethos, and from that flows such acts as suspension of habeas corpus. It's a misapplication. In wartime, the entire nation is threatened. As much as we view images of subways being bombed and dozens of people killed, it is only a minor act compared to, say, the Blitz.
Ultimately all that sets (or is supposed to set) our civilization apart from earlier ones and other extant ones is our fundemental belief in individual liberties. Traditionally societies have framed rights in the context of the greater whole, and demanded that the individual subsume himself or herself into an order of dominance and submittance.
In the West, the individual is directly afforded what are supposed to be inalieable rights. Most liberal states do grant the state some power to temporarily suspend such rights, mainly in periods of revolt. Such powers are never meant to be permanent or semi-permanent fixtures, though not-so-liberal states quite often make them so.
It is one thing for the judiciary arm of the state to screw up. That will happen, I'm afraid, no matter what sort of a system we have in place. But in our tradition, the state is not sacrosanct; it is very much our right to demand redress when it makes mistakes.
This fellow was held on the flimsiest of evidence, all justified by the current heightened fear over terror. That fear may be justified to a certain degree (no one can really accuse the leaders of ever trying to calm people and put such crimes in perspective). Now that that evidence has turned out to be nothing at all, in a properly functioning liberal democracy, the state should reverse all the consequences that go along with the false charge.
Since the beginning of monolithic government, there has always been the temptation of the state to revoke or limit the rights of those subject to it. Rarely, I think, is it some Darth Vader-esque motive of simply wanting to wield power for power's sake, but normally it is because those people who comprise the governing structure of the state genuinely believe they are doing what is best. But good motives do not mean that such actions are necessarily good.
Using terrorism as an excuse to suspend and/or limit rights is only the latest chapter in governments throughout history using the state of emergency to grab power and render impotent the freedoms of their citizens.
Our troops are engaged overseas in a combat zone and yes, as far as I am concerned, we are at war. We have been ever since the invasion of Afghanistan, and we will be until the day that jubilant Muslims drag Bin Laden's mutilated corpse through the streets of wherever he's caught.
The authorities acted on information which, if true, would have made him a very close accessory to a terrorist act. If I'd done this, or been suspected of it, I'd expect not to see the light of day until the issue was resolved.
We revoke or limit the rights of criminals on a daily basis. Terrorists are one step beyond, because they are by definition guilty of conspiracy to commit murder from the start. The nation which bends over backwards in its approach to terrorists, as you advocate, has no right to complain when some of its people get killed. Are you prepared to pay that price? If you are not, maybe you should stop complaining about what this nation does to try to keep you safe.