This is the open thread to discuss anything surrounding the Haneef Affair and the report that has now been released that seems to absolve Howard and Andrews of any wrongdoing. But I do note this from the report (note: big PDF):
Only one person— Mr Michael Toby (former chief of staff in the office of the Hon. Kevin Andrews MP), who was contacted by telephone—declined to provide a statement.
Mr Jamie Fox, currently an officer in the Department of Immigration and Citizenship but previously an adviser in the office of the then Prime Minister, the Hon. John Howard MP, did not receive permission from Mr Howard to make a statement.
Funny that, eh?
I will be looking over the old threads to see what we said at the time sits with what is in the report.
joni
Update: Here is a post written by Andrew Bartlett over at crikey.
Filed under: Australian Politics, Human Rights | Tagged: Haneef Affiar
And I love this comment about the cancellation of the doctors visa by Andrews:
A frickin’ copout.
Just once in my lifetime I would like to see a government enquiry find and publish the entire truth and facts along with recommending punishment for those involved.
Won’t hold my breath.
And this:
My emphasis above.
I seem to remember Andrews saying that he made his decision with ALL the information available.
I will continue to hold Andrews accountable for his disgraceful actions as a minister of the crown.
Now I’m a little confused joni. Didn’t the report find that ASIO did not give the AFP all the facts yet that statement says they did?
And here is a link from what we discussed last year in the other place:
Chamber of Secrets
Adrian
You are not the only one… methinks that there is a lot hidden in the report that will reflect very badly on the former government, and that Shanahan’s piece this morning was an attempt to get the meme out there that the former government did nothing wrong.
I think there is going to be more to this.
I think we all know that ministerial accountability will remain a chimera. MPs have been granted enough wriggle room to allow them to avoid proper scrutiny.
joni, sinse I was not on the thread you linked to this is what my position was over at Hedley’s blog over at The Australian.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/hedleythomas/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rudd_cant_let_haneef_case_be_buried/P50/
And I’m sticking to it!!!
The general public – myself included – have no reason to believe that this was anything more than a bungled Keystone Kops-type operation. Many here suspect something more sinister afoot, but the fact remains that all the actors have been exonerated.
It does appear, however – are you listening Adrian?
– that this is one more pre-election commitment the Rudd government can tick off without anyone having lost any skin.
scaper – absolutely agree.
And Tony – they have not been exonerated. Wait until the report is read in full.
This will be the acid test for this government as far as I am concerned.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24837438-601,00.html
They should do the noble thing.
Here is more.
http://www.ag.gov.au/www/agd/agd.nsf/Page/Publications_AustralianGovernmentresponsetoClarkeInquiryintotheCaseofDrMohamedHaneef-December2008
Honesty and Integrity never enters a Politicians mind,the inquiry into the Haneef affair has ended up like the Cole inquiry into the AWB 300 Million dollar scandal,once again Politicians are cleared of any wrongdoing,here I was thinking the Rudd Government would make it it’s number one priority in fixing up the Howard Governments mess,I am a Labor voter,but this is a total let down by Rudd, the only way out of this debacle is to vote independent at the next Federal Elections.
joni, the link is interesting for a munber of reasons (number of posts, lot of bitterness between some posters, all the old names we’ve lost, and how close some came to what’s happened)
Aussie Sheila Wed 01 Aug 07 (12:46pm)
The full facts will not be recovered until well after the next election, and that is exactly the result that was sought.
My own contribution (one of my first)
STILL think its OK to simply BELIEVE a person is guilty and stick them in jail without having to PROVE IT with EVIDENCE!
TB Queensland of Queensland Tue 31 Jul 07 (05:45pm)
Oh c’mon Tony exonerated, only you and Shanahan could come to that conclusion and I doubt you or Shanahan really believe it, just relieved the Howard government got away with it yet again.
History will tell a different story as it always does, only when those involved are dead or too old to be effected by the truth outing.
I’m listening much more than you are Tony and can you elicit why the Rudd government would have just signed off on this without elucidating the truth of it? Simple really as a Liberal government would have done the same thing if the roles were reversed. But as I said inevitably history reveals the true story as it will in this case, and it will not be keystone kop but political phrolics.
No, but I await your pearls of wisdom with bated breath.
No one thinks it is odd that Andrews’ Chief of Staff refused to make a statement?
Please Tony, certainly you know how the boy’s club works, and the I’ll watch your back because sure as f*ck I’m going to get up to no good one day if in power and will have things I won’t want revealed.
It was like the unwritten parliamentary rule never to use race for political gain (look it up, I think references are still around), that is until Howard came along and broke that tenet which came out of the fallout of the White Australia Policy.
As I said joni, history will out and you are so right, there is so much more damning that hasn’t been revealed in this enquiry than has, with that gem being just one.
Was the same as the AWB and Children Overboard enquiries, where staffers and department workers were ordered to remain silent. All these things don’t stay silent forever.
Wasn’t that one of the weaknesses discussed at the time this enquiry was announced – it could not compel someone to give evidence.
On the other hand, why should anyone commit themselves to give evidence in a complex – politically sensitive – enquiry like this if they don’t have to?
ToSY,
Perhaps the truth is what they wanted to hide?
(My 19 is in response to Joni at 17.)
Joni 20.
Perhaps. Who knows?
Methinks Howard has more ticking time bombs out there than any leader in our history, which makes me think he will slowly sink into the deepest depths of obscurity out of his own volition.
It is a fact that Howard had more own party members, bureaucrats, senior public servants and military leaders speak out against him than any other serving PM in our history. He also went to extraordinary lengths to keep the lid on his administration, imposing the harshest penalties ever for revelation and the highest rewards for silence or being the scapegoat, including $30 million in AFP spending hunting out leaks, whistleblowers and enforcing strict security protocols including sound proofing his office which is in the middle of a secure area. All the requisites of a leader with a lot to hide.
Tony, anything less than a Royal Commission would not get to the truth of the matter…I’m not interested in revenge or anything like that, I just do not want to see this type of event occur again or the continuance of the culture that weakens the foundation of this nation.
If you go to the link on comment 8 and scroll down to my reply to Hedley you will see that this was possible but the opportunity was missed, or ignored.
24. scaper
Trouble is, scaper, even Royal Commissions can be knobbled by simply “adjusting” their terms of reference – we are talking about the Secret Society of The Robber Barons here…
John Clarke, head of the Inquiry
“I do find the cancellation (of the visa)—and particularly its timing — mystifying.”
Will some journalist ask Andrews to clear up this mystery so that the Head of the Inquiry can be informed. Why Clarke didn’t ask Andrews at the time or subsequently remains a mystery to me.
It would seem Andrews has been left holding the Howard ‘baby’. A fitting end to an undistinguished career. FGS even Nelson abandoned him.
What is encouraging is that Robert McClelland, the Attorney General, said the government would adopt all of the report’s recommendations.
The enquiry found that police had no evidence whatsoever against Haneef, and there Andrews’ action in canceling Haneef’s visa was “mystifying”.
ABC link
Of course, everyone who was in a position of responsibility at the time is completely absolved of responsibility by the enquiry. It’s amazing isn’t it?
26. Nature 5
John who? was Dawes with him?
27. Defamed Raw Prawn |
…and no-one is at fault – no blame – but haneef will be entitled to a massive compensation payout!
…if it was anyone posting here they would simply be fired!
Calls for a Royal Commission into the treatment of Haneef, scandalous as it was, are off the mark. Similar calls relating to the death of Cameron Domadgee are also off the mark and surely no-one would argue a death is in a lesser category as ‘bad treatment’.
Aboriginal Deaths in Custody warranted a Royal Commission because it was (and is) a widespread problem. British Nuclear Tests in Australia also fits the bill as does the Fitzgerald Inquiry into Police Corruption in Queensland.
Not all issues warrant a Royal Commission for a range of reasons including the fact they are very, very expensive and Judges’ pensions ensure a very good lifestyle,
Royal Commissions should not be the playthings of vindictive governments and should only be formed for matters that are serious and widespread. The Haneef case does not qualify nor does the death of Cameron Domadgee.
A bit of perspective please.
“but haneef will be entitled to a massive compensation payout!”
‘Entitled’ – says who? Any link to that? It seems to me he is entitled to take legal action – possibly for defamation – but there is no certainty in that course of action.
I haven’t read the report, but I’ll bet they use the words ’silos’ in reference to the non-cooperation and non-communication between various departments. If not, I’ll be very surprised because the Inquiries must have found a new template.
30. Nature 5
Wanna bet he doesn’t get offered?
“Wanna bet he doesn’t get offered?”
No! Not into betting. But the average punter would be upset if this ’suspected terrorist’ got a free ride. You just never know. Lol. They are cunning.
While this Report may be of interest to the ‘interested’, the average punter couldn’t give a stuff. I suspect ‘masterly inaction’ would be the best response (apart from implementing the recommendations). If I was Rudd, I wouldn’t be keen to do anything other than blame it all on Howard and call for Howard to deliver an apology. Lol.
After all, Howard set a standard that he wouldn’t apologise to the Aborigines because he wasn’t responsible. Now it has been demonstrated that he was responsible for Haneef’s treatment. A grovel is in order. The fact that it won’t happen is a safe bet, I suspect. Lol.
Adrian @ 23
Is that a fact?
34.
Best thing you’ve said in this blog.
35.
Smartest thing you’ve said.
Touche!
“While this Report may be of interest to the ‘interested’, the average punter couldn’t give a stuff”N5
Says it all really IMHO.
The primary reason that we (as a social collective) are “all” treated as misinformed, disinterested chumps. Not enough people give a f@ck.
Sadly, the average punter doesn’t give a toss. While this is so we can expect our leaders to tread the path of least resistance & manipulate, patronise & fiddle the public conscience.
It would be a grave mistake to assume that the majority of voters possess even a fraction of the political awareness of those with an interest (passing as it may be) as that found on forums such as this.
Seriously, how many people can you engage politically in a conversation & actually be stimulated by anything more than superficial powerpoint understanding?
Then again, they’re probably all just happily living their lives in ignorant bliss.
Personally, I don’t find ignorance soothing, however an argument could be made to support its’ virtue in as much as mental serenity can be maintained.
I don’t know…maybe there is more than meets the eye at this stage.
There is more to be played out I sense.
32. Nature 5
If you took the best option (for us non average punters – and of course as you always ask – you have evidence that the average punter isn’t intersted in justice – I have more faith in Australian’s idea of a fair go) you would refuse any compensation and just let Haneef’s lawyers proceed with a defamation case …
… all witnesses would be under oath and perjury is still the “worst’ crime in any court…
…just imagine Howard, Andrews, Kelty, AFP ivestigating officers, Queensland police officers, ASIO operatives, a Scotland Yard senior officer…yeah?
…there will be an ‘undisclosed” offer to Dr Haneef…
…we’ve bailed out the banks – we’ve bailed out the car manufacturers AND dealers…Haneef is small bikkies…
…it’ll be – “pay him, offer him another job and move on”
36.
That makes everything I’ve said prior to 35 sheer genius.
Toiletboss
You say:
“Sadly, the average punter doesn’t give a toss.”
Sad but true!
“they’re probably all just happily living their lives in ignorant bliss.”
Indeed! Seems you want to be a dissatisfied Socrates rather than a satisified pig. It’s not a widely held view BTW, even on this Blog.
“Personally, I don’t find ignorance soothing,”
Neither do I. And I challenge it at every opportunity. And it certainly ain’t bliss!
You might want to read how Plato many years ago used the Allegory of the Cave to explain why punters prefer ’shadows’ to ‘reality’. Well it’s a start anyway. Lol
http://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm
TB
“Haneef is small bikkies…”
At the moment he is, but if you pay him compensation without a legal fight, he could well become ‘big bikkies’. Imagine what Bolt et. al. would do with that. The scream would be that Rudd is ’soft on terrorism’ – ‘prepared to risk’ and so on.
Can’t see the political advantage in paying an ‘Islamic’ adherent while compensation for fallen soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan get a pittance. Does Kylie Russel still ring a bell?
“Seems you want to be a dissatisfied Socrates rather than a satisified pig. It’s not a widely held view BTW”N5
Multitudes may disagree, but to me it is a clear sign of a healthy, rational, mind.
Thanx for the link.
It is not the duty of the ‘average punter’ to ensure the course of legal due process.
Ironically, the suspicion cast upon Dr. Haneef in the first instance which amounted more to guilt by association rather than illegal conduct, must now be cast upon those who may have conspired to pervert the course of justice.
I say Royal Commission now, with terms of reference wide enough to call and question all participants in this debacle, irrespective of present or former status.
“I say Royal Commission now, with terms of reference wide enough to call and question all participants in this debacle, irrespective of present or former status”OB
I concur, but in such echelons it will never happen. Too many skeletons stand to be dragged from their respective closets, on both sides of Teh House.
What I wouldn’t give to see The Rodent chargrilled in public, twisting greasily under scrutiny from which he cannot escape with weaselspeak. Aaaah, fantasyland, if only it weren’t so implausible.
“I say Royal Commission now, with terms of reference wide enough to call and question all participants in this debacle, irrespective of present or former status”
Not going to happen – even if Pauline was running the show. Lol.
If I wanted to push for a Royal Commission and a sense of priority, I would be looking at why we were part of the Iraq Invasion despite ample evidence that WMDs were non-existent. Now that is a significant issue and the root cause of multiple deaths and disfigurements. Don’t hear much about that disaster these days but these criminal activities are much more significant than the Haneef case.
It isn’t going to happen either. Like doctors we (the body politic) bury our mistakes.
“If I wanted to push for a Royal Commission and a sense of priority, I would be looking at why we were part of the Iraq Invasion despite ample evidence that WMDs were non-existent”N5
The vulgarity of the Iraq Invasion is being conveniently obscured over time. It is far more beneficial to the existing paradigm, Labor & Liberal/Democrat & Republican alike, to perpetuate the whole Islam vs Teh West misconception.
Remember, we only fight in “just wars”…& our own pristine combatants NEVER commit war crimes.
Black & White, Good & Bad are so much easier to assimilate than nuance or actual cause & effect.
Toiletboss
“& our own pristine combatants NEVER commit war crimes.”
Getting close to the bone (truth) now. The good old Aussie soldier wouldn’t commit a war crime. We are not like all other nations or other people. That’s what makes us special.
In fact, we are not like any other humans under pressure because we always behave ethically,
And how likely is that Socrates?
Toiletboss: Let’s look at this matter from another perspective. As I recall, the sanctimonious, gutless twat known to us all as Tip Costello ended the career of one of his own Liberal colleagues, Senator Ian Campbell, on the basis of ‘guilt by association’, (with Brian Burke) under parliamentary privilege.
Which is to say, the Liberals have ‘form’ on this very (Haneef) issue. Damn the evidence, damn the consequence, neither of which was a consideration of Tip at that time.
Tip’s ultimatum was delivered specifically to defame a Labor person and those that may have had association with that Labor person, with the ultimate goal being truly Machiavellian in style. The cohorts of Tip acted in precisely the same way re the Haneef matter.
Nature 5: How convenient of you to refer blogocrats to the writings of Plato, and advocate ‘masterly inaction’, as you were not the subject of persecution.
I would refer you to the writings if Diogenes.
OB
I agree that Haneef, & the political expedience with which he was handled, deserves a Royal Commision. I just doubt that it will happen (historically precedented) & even if it does I expect a convenient (for our top tier) well sanitised “inquiry” in the same vein as the convenient, well sanitised findings of the AWB Inquiry.
Costello is a (spineless) self-serving prick, no doubt about it. Not all are spineless, but too many among our appointed “advocates” are self serving. Pity, they spend a fair bit of time promulgating the ideals of “democracy”.
N5″We are not like all other nations or other people. That’s what makes us special.”
So say we all.
I often wonder if those who truly believe this are those who have never strayed further than locations within their day to day routine, let alone amidst odd looking, differently behaving people in far off countries?
If you can buy the obvious jingo-trickery then it’s not much further intellectually to extend that into “righteous” justifications for making other cultures wear “legitimate” bullseyes & opportunistically occupying the space that they leave behind after we shoulder them out.
My beef has never been with the “soldier”, soldiers do not instigate wars. They are the unfortunate tools of war. This kind of distinction is regularly overlooked by those who attack resistance to armed conflict with accusations of “troop betrayal”.
Could somebody other than the usual “blow-hearts” give me a reason why this is such a huge story? So what if a “foreign national” had his visa cancelled, last time I checked foreigners were present at the leisure of the government? Sure, compensate the guy for being “inconvenienced” while events unfolded, with little info at hand to work with and a clear connection to this guy and a bomber. Now if he had been “tortured” or his rights violated, I could see where there might be some concern to the average Aussie citizen but honestly, where is the story? I would prefer in such scenarios that government take quick action with suspected “terrorists” who they feel at the time may be involved other than doing nothing in fear of being “lambasted” if they make a mistake. They have not the convenience of “hind-sight” that many of the citizen “experts” use now to “convict them”. Fine, so once the officials realized there was very little if any direct evidence linking the man to the actual events in England, they tried to find “more” justification for holding him; hardly novel in the criminal justice system. Frankly, this story would not be one if they had just come out with such an opinion instead of trying to “hype” what they really had on the man. Anybody surprised? Labor, Liberals, Democrats, Republicans; we are talking about politicians here folks. Still, it was in the best interest of the public to act, was it not? In the end what is the crime? Sounds like the kind of mistakes I would like to see my government make if they are to make them at all? We are not talking about WMD’s here for god’s sake?
Sparta
Near as I can make it the leftoids think that Howard was using Haneef to try and win votes. They think that Howard got Haneef thrown into prison to try and look tough on terrorism.
Beats me how this would win votes. Perhaps because Haneef is Muslim the leftoids think that Howard thought that there were some anti-islamic votes in this. Furthermore if this was true somebody would spill the beans. Howard has many enemies who would love something like this to be true.
I think the leftoids have just made it harder for the next immigration minister. Andrews was obviously suspicious of Haneef. If the immigration minister does not deport a foreign national who he has suspicisions about and then this person sets off a bomb and kills people, this would be on his conscience for the rest of his life. I think Andrews took the better to be safe than sorry approach.
Haneef gave his SIM card to people associated with terrorists. If I was living in the US and it was found I had given my SIM card to someone who had been involved in terrorism within the US, I would expect a visit from the police.
My god you certainly get things spectacularly wrong Neil.
It was all about exactly what you say it isn’t. The Howard government was polling very badly and going worse when Haneef came up. The government ignored intelligence that said he wasn’t guilty or involved in anyway, and the AFP under the complete control of a government that does anything to win elections followed their political masters instructions.
He gave a SIM card to a relative and was completely cleared of anything nefarious yet the government not only ignored that (and apparently UK authorities as well, one who came here to brief the government) made up their own accusations and lied.
Andrews saying he was brave and deserves and apology, what a laugh. Haneef deserves the apology and every cent he gets in compensation. I only wish it came out of Andrews’s pockets.
No Sparta, it might have been in the best interest to act if there was a suspicion, but there wasn’t. Our leading intelligence agency had tabled a report which said Haneef had nothing to do with the terrorist attacks in the UK and the government got a briefing from UK authorities which they’ve kept secret. The enquiry found that there was never the slightest bit of evidence or suspicion he had anything to with the attacks in the UK or had any links to them.
Through all of this the government of the time did not make out there might not be a link and Haneef might not be involved, instead they denigrated, lambasted and all but accused Haneef of being a terrorist even though they knew at the time he had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks in England.
This is a political party that has not hesitated to use race and fear to win elections in the past and because of poor polling was desperately looking for another Tampa or September 11 2001 to boost their waning fortunes. Haneef was too good an opportunity for them to overlook and true to their form they went in full bore.
Then when a court found there was no link to terrorism and that the government had wrongly arrested Haneef, the government immediately cancelled his visa and put him back in jail then to deport him without allowing him a recourse to anything.
That misguided and corrupt action will cost Australian taxpayers a lot in compensation.
Hidden deep in the report is details on how the ASIO information that cleared Haneef of wrong doing never made it to Andrews, instead the trail stopped at Andrews Chief of Staff – this was information that should have meant that the visa was never cancelled.
And who refused to give evidence at the inquiry? Michael Toby – Andrews Chief of Staff.
When all the actual truth comes out, those like Neil and sparta will ignore the fact that we were right (see the WMD’s) and will say things like “no point going over old ground” or “everyone believed he was guilty” and will try and absolve those who lied for political gain.
We need to start to demand that those responsible are held accountable for their actions. And by accountable – I do not mean just at the ballot box.
joni,
Forgive me if I misunderstand you, but are you saying that you don’t accept the findings of the enquiry, so we must have another enquiry; in other words, you won’t accept the umpire’s decision?
No Tony – I am saying that the inquiry did find that there were “mysterious” actions taken by Andrews, and that his Chief of Staff (who refused to give information) did not pass on the assessment from ASIO that there was nothing amiss regarding Haneef, The inquiry is absolutely critical of Andrews -that is the part that you do not accept.
The truth will come out, it always does. And that when it does, those who defended Andrews will try to shut down debate and to say we need to move forward.
Like ministerial press statements during times of crisis, it is not what is said that is interesting, it is what is not said.
The modus operandi of the Howard government was that of ministerial deniability – the standard cry is “I wasn’t told”, but did they instruct their staffers to not tell them?
59. joni | December 24, 2008 at 8:11 am
Ain’t that the truth, I can hear them rehearsing their time to move on lines already.
Apparently Haneef might come back to Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/i-dont-hold-grudges-against-australia/2008/12/23/1229998526704.html
joni,
First I must declare that I have only read the overview, not the full report.
My reading is that a number of mistakes were made by many agents, not the least of which was this one which you allude:
You say “The inquiry is absolutely critical of Andrews -that is the part that you do not accept.”
I presume you mean the part where it says:
You might read that as being absolutely critical, others may read it as Mr Clarke saying he believes Haneef’s visa should not have been cancelled, but they would also read the part about “no evidence of conspiracy or an improper purpose” as a mistake made by someone who believed “he acted in the national interest”.
I’m prepared to take the enquiry on face value and refer to that as the truth of the matter. Whether your ‘troof’ ever eventuates only time will tell, but please don’t tell me what my reaction will be if it does – I may just surprise you.
The first line of the first quote above should read:
(I tidied up the copy from the PDF and must have lost a line in the process.)
51. Toiletboss
Just a warning HD, Nature5, in a “past life” and obviously in the present, likes to “socially experiment” with you (and anyone else) that’s why his posts fluctuate from one side to ‘tother. Just informin’…
…you’ll also notice a more subtle method of antagonising (trolling)…
And it was a full inquiry? Don’t make me laugh. This is from page 8 of the report:
And remember that the former member for Bennelong refused to front the inqury too.
And how about this timeline of the 16th July (page 176-177)
- a meeting was held with Howard, Andrews and Ruddock (amongst others)
- Andrews gave an account to the inquiry of what happened at that meeting
- Ruddock denied being at any meeting on the 16th July
Hmmmmm…
More conflicting statements:
Flying pork products abound.
More:
Note that Clarke does not say that there is no evidence, just that he did not find any. And without the full co-operation of the actors – how can we be sure?
“I had no option but to abide by the conventions.”
Maybe. But he could have gone back to the Government and asked for additional powers. That’s what Tony Fitzgerald did in Queensland.
I note also that Ruddock is saying no apology and no compensation. That makes it even harder for the present Government to deal with in a sympathetic manner.
Joni,
Bernard Murphy, chairman of Maurice Blackburn, was just on the radio. He made statements to the effect that they would approach the government seeking substantial compensation for Haneef. He also alleged something similar to what you’re saying – political interference of some sort. He indicated that if the can’t reach agreement with the government, they will pursue other options.
If this matter ever came to court as a lawsuit against the govt, presumably everyone could be subpoenaed and compelled to give evidence. You would then have your full enquiry.
Yeah joni the deeper you dig the more political muck you unearth. Only an ideolog or a glued on wingnut would keep to the line Andrews acted on the best interest of the nation, though I’m fairly certain they don’t really believe that in this instance. This was all about politics by a desperate party from start to finish.
Joni,
Due try and stay on topic would you? I don’t mind being drawn into a spat to do with nothing but really what are you on about? What truth are you talking about anyway?
Adrian alluded to political grandstanding but what crime has been committed against Haneef that I am missing or that warrants dragging this out any further? Honest question, not a jab? While I am at it, what became of the whole “chat room” accusation?
69. N5
More than that, Andrews and the previous government are demanding an apology for apparently being maligned. Andrews is saying he was courageous in protecting Australia from terrorism and was maligned for it.
Senator George Brandis on ABC Breakfast put an entirely new interpretation on the enquiry in averring that it somehow completely vindicated the previous government and found nothing wrong with their procedures.
sparta
The similarities with WMD, torture, Tampa, AWB, Haneef et al, is that the information given to the public shows one story, but when you see the information that was deliberately hidden – you get a completely different story.
Because for the WMD’s, the meme that is trotted out out is that we all believed that Saddam still had the WMD at the time so why go over old ground. The problem being that we were lied to – and that it is our fault for believing those lies – not the fault of those who told those lies.
Well – I am sorry – but I will continue to try to get those responsible held to account for their deliberate acts.
And I just scanned the Daily Telegraph and could not find any mention of the inquiry. Typical.
“Because for the WMD’s, the meme that is trotted out out is that we all believed that Saddam still had the WMD at the time so why go over old ground. The problem being that we were lied to – and that it is our fault for believing those lies – not the fault of those who told those lies.”
Look, when they find “evidence” to that fact I will be the first to call for the ex-president’s head but with every Left-wing group and politician looking, I am not certain there is anything to find. Several presidents before GW believed the same so they can get in line as well then? Yes, even the beloved Clinton. France, Germany etcetera and so it seems odd to some of us that people would go on about it. One can say it was all lies till there blue in the face but “going with your gut” reminds me of somebody else! Hey, I am glad we have “truth seekers” like you out there but it seems many are obsessed with turning everything into another “Watergate”. Now back to the “Haneef Conspiracy”, what is the crime allegedly committed by the Australian officials that warrants further inquiry?
Joni,
The Daily Telegraph had this article yesterday. This line from Bernard Murphy surprised me (he should catch up on who is actually in government before commencing negotiations with them(:
Howard & his manipulative cabal had rare form on this kind of cynical maneuvre.
The current government looks set to let it go through to the keeper.
One hand washes the other, nobody should be surprised.
Ah – and we get the “several presidents before” line to cover the lies told by the admin.
The crime? Until we get the truth from all of the actors in this (including those who either refused to give evidence or those who were prevented) we will not know if the decision to cancel the visa was on “political” grounds and not “national interest” grounds.
Of course, demonising, locking up and cancelling the visa of an innocent man is not a problem in the eyes of some.
And do remember – that the decision of Andrews was overturned by a court.
Sparta Phoenix, AZ USA | December 24, 2008 at 2:17 am Sparta, we invited Dr Haneef to come to our country to fill a position of acute shortage that is a doctor working in a public hospital in a large regional center. That is Dr Haneef was here on a valid working visa which was cancelled at the whim of a politician out to score points via the anti-terrorism theme.
There was no clear connection between Dr Haneef and the bomber. It was an obscure connection much the same as you having a 2nd cousin who is now in the clink for theft. Does this also make you a thief?
“Of course, demonising, locking up and cancelling the visa of an innocent man is not a problem in the eyes of some.”
Demonizing, you mean like the kind verbal bashing I receive here? Who can I seek damages from? He will be getting his payday compliments of you and other tax payers, never fear. Locking up and cancelling his visa? Yes, what a bunch of jack-boot wearing thugs your government is, the nerve!
Sparta, you choose to be on this blog. Dr. Haneef was going about his own business working long hours in a Gold Coast hospital to suddenly be taken into custody because of what some cousin in England was supposed to have done.
Min,
“It was an obscure connection much the same as you having a 2nd cousin who is now in the clink for theft. Does this also make you a thief?”
Of course not but then again, I doubt any of us here have any relatives 3rd or 4th that have been involved in a terrorist act either. Seems harmless enough of a relationship but the fact the man was on his way out of the country probably didn’t help to convince authorities of his innocents. GW and company still catch grief for allowing Bin Laden’s family to leave shortly after the attack on the towers. Strangely, it seems your dammed if you do, dammed if you don’t?
[...] the inquiry into the Haneef debacle that occurred at the tail end of the previous government has generated a lot of commentary. This report on the ABC’s website drew over a 100 comments in just a few [...]
Not exactly like that Min. Haneef was fleeing the country after being warned of the concerns about his sim card – Clarke used the word flight – when he was detained.
A comic interlude: ‘Phil Ruddock told news agencies this morning he has no regrets in regard to his (Ruddock’s) handling of the Haneef case’ . . .
Memo to all Australians: Just think for one moment. This is the guy who went on Australian national TV to tell us that the US was well within its rights to deny natural justice to any citizen of world, suspension of habeas corpus is ok, that 5 years of incarceration, without charge was ok and not sufficient time to prepare a case against an accused, that Aus had no right to interfere with US domestic policy.
Ruddock, by extension, sees no problem with allowing a war criminal aka Little Dick Cheney to enter this country with the express purpose of releasing David Hicks from hell as a pre-election sweetener. Bloody heck.
ToSY: Your suggestion of a simple Haneef law suit brought against whomever evades the real thrust of this problem, which is to ensure the due process of law is not perverted by those seeking to gain political points at the expense of that due process. How very convenient.
“Sparta, you choose to be on this blog. Dr. Haneef was going about his own business working long hours in a Gold Coast hospital”
Relax; it was just a joke dude. I give as much as I get most of the time. Just find it amusing so many worry about this man being demonized yet demonize regularly themselves. However, please don’t go on about the “long hours”. Haneef like all other physicians from the developing world are not in the West to serve their fellow man. If it was just about caring for people he would have noticed India’s plight. He was there for the buck, nothing more; let’s not try and inflate the man’s image any further, shall we?
Sparta please read up on the whole story instead of attempting to make judgements from afar with a fraction of the facts. The implied accusation by you of him attempting to leave the country indicating guilt, which was fully dealt with here almost from the start, proves you are attempting to justify what was a terrible character assassination for political purposes by the previous government.
Now back to the “Haneef Conspiracy”, what is the crime allegedly committed by the Australian officials that warrants further inquiry?76. Sparta Phoenix, AZ USA
As opposed to your country Sparta, Australian police need EVIDENCE to put people in jail and/or deport them…
…in Haneef’s case their was no evidence…even a senior Scotland Yard investigator, said they were not interested in Haneef…
…AFP officers at the time told their superiors their was insufficient, no, evidence but were over-ruled by senior AFP officers…
…the organisation that arrested Haneef, Queensland Police, believed their was no evidence…
…many Australians were unaware that anyone could suddenly be picked up and associated with friends and relatives half way round the world with no evidence…
…I’m just trying to paint a word picture, Sparta, there was no evidence and a man’s reputation was destroyed, his family persecuted and he was ignominiously deported – on no evidence…
…now either the AFP’s and Andrews’ decisions, based on no evidence, was wrong, they were playing politics, following instructions, or simply incompetent…
…whatever happened, the people need to be held to account and its pretty obvious that a “bluddy hewge” payout is coming up ’cause some twit screwed up…
…all based on NO EVIDENCE!
“we will not know if the decision to cancel the visa was on “political” grounds and not “national interest” grounds.
79. joni | December 24, 2008 at 11:26 am”
I think it is about time for you people to put up or shut up. All i have every heard from you people are allegations about Howard and what he was supposedly up to. Its about time to show some proof or keep you traps shut.
I think it was you people playing politics. I never believed that you people cared about Iraq, AWB, Hicks, Haneef etc etc. They were just things to bash John Howard over the head with. If the Haneef thing had happened with the ALP in power I doubt it would have been as much news. People are having their visas cancelled all the time. Immigration officials tend to shoot first and then ask questions latter. I am sure most aussies can remember the “friendly” officials at Los Angeles airport.
Some proof please.
Sorry Neil – I will not keep my trap shut.
And if you haven’t noticed we have “bashed” Rudd over a number of human rights issues here on this blog (see the Christmas Island thread).
Some proof please
Wrong way round, NoS
Howard & The Private School Bullies started the ball rolling…
…ahh! being afree man I have to go and mow the lawn – back in an hour!
Tony, Haneef did not flee, he was flying home to India to be with his wife and newborn…he applied for and got leave from the hospital that he worked for.
Adrian & TB,
I don’t know gentleman, it just seems there is “much ado about nothing”. The guy will return to Australia a “rock star”, be well compensated for it, probably granted “asylum” for himself and the family; live happily ever after in a beach house in Queensland that puts out a huge carbon footprint. More than likely he will write a book or have rights to the movie which is probably already in the works. He will definitely go on some local lecture circuit complements of leading academics on the premise of “Government Abuse’. I don’t know, in many ways it may turn out that giving that SIM card to his cousin was the smartest thing he ever did. Despite the minor inconvenience of being detained and having a “visa” canceled?
85. Tony of South Yarra | December 24, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Out comes the same old disproved crap again. What is it with wingnuts that they think if they repeat something often enough, even if it’s discredited, it somehow makes their statement legitimate.
Remember that the previous government had at one stage 600 agents and millions spent on investigating Haneef but found nothing, including the fact he was not fleeing the country because of the discovery of his SIM card in the UK.
Haneef was leaving the country to visit his wife back home who was about to have a caesarian. He had flagged this with the hospital and actually delayed his trip by several days whilst he covered his shifts.
Why let the facts get in the way of a good story, and why repeat the fact when they don’t suit your ideological defence of a nefarious government with a history of deceit and using race for political gain.
“Though Clarke called him “impressive, dedicated and capable”, he found Jabbour had lost objectivity and was “unable to see that the evidence he regarded as highly incriminating in fact amounted to very little”.”
“Jabbour, said Clarke, who kept evidence that might exonerate Haneef from the magistrate ”
“But Clarke reveals a pattern in this case of ASIO giving Haneef a clean bill of health while the police, led by Jabbour, continued to put the worst possible slant on the scant evidence against him.”
“Federal agent Neil Thompson of the federal police and Detective Sergeant Adam Simms of the Queensland Police were the officers who had to be persuaded to arrest Haneef and the ones who interrogated him over the best part of 24 hours, at the end of which they refused to put their names to any charges.
Clarke wrote: “Simms and Thompson told the inquiry that the usual course would be for them, as the arresting officers, to make the decision about whether or not to charge, and that consequently they felt ‘under considerable pressure’ at this time. Both said, however, that in their opinion there was insufficient evidence, and they refused to charge Dr Haneef.”
So Jabbour took over and charged the doctor with recklessly assisting a terrorist organisation by giving his cousin Sabeel Ahmed an old SIM card – still registered in his name – one year before Sabeel’s brother tried and failed to blow up a London nightclub and Glasgow Airport.
Though the charge was withdrawn after only a fortnight in a welter of public embarrassment, the federal police continued to pursue Haneef. Simms got a trip to Britain out of it and there discovered how easy it is to buy a SIM card in anyone’s name, real or false. He told Clarke “he wished that ’someone had come forward and said that a lot earlier’, noting that it ‘begs the question as to why terrorists would want to use SIM cards that are registered in the names of affiliates, associates or relatives. It just doesn’t stand to reason’.”
It never did. Clarke talks like an old judge but without a judge’s power. He doesn’t allow himself to reach cut and dried conclusions. Everything is veiled in the languid rhetoric of concern, surprise, bewilderment, etc. “I record my surprise that not one of the people involved in the police investigation and the charging whom the inquiry interviewed stood back at any time prior to the decision to charge and reflected on what Dr Haneef was known to have done.”
Bugger all. Aficionados of the case will find hundreds of fascinating details in the report that clarify the complicated interaction of police, ASIO and the minister’s office. We discover that though Haneef was begging to be allowed to talk to his wife, it took the federal police eight days to do it. Clarke refused to accept police claims that such contact might have allowed the prisoner to wreck the case.
ASIO’s role behind the scenes is the most eye-opening aspect. We knew it had cleared Haneef before he was charged. What now emerges is that within 48 hours of his arrest ASIO told the government in writing that it “had not identified information to suggest that Haneef: posed a specific threat to security, in Australia or overseas; was planning to undertake an act of violence in Australia or elsewhere; was involved in, or had foreknowledge of, the failed UK attacks.”
That advice never changed. It proved correct. But the government essentially ignored it. The federal police come out as cowboys and ASIO as the cool professionals. But the cowboys were running the show.
Jabbour gets another caning: “There does not appear to have been any systematic process for recording and updating the information received in the course of the investigation and for keeping track of significant avenues of inquiry for the purposes of assessing the grounds for the belief that Dr Haneef had committed an offence . . . In the absence of such a process, any review by Jabbour of the reasonableness of his belief was likely to have been an impressionistic exercise.”
This was the first time the new machinery of detention without charge had been used. Guarantees against misuse of the system are theoretically provided by the oversight of a magistrate, in this case Jim Gordon of Brisbane. But Clarke shows how difficult Gordon’s position was. Essentially he was flying blind with only the information police let him have.
Clarke found Haneef “was not told he had a right to personally make representations to the magistrate” and his lawyers never saw sensitive intelligence evidence against him. The material the police gave the magistrate was seriously inaccurate and did not include important evidence that supported Haneef’s innocence. Clarke keeps some of his strongest language in reserve for urging changes to a system with “simply no provision covering procedural fairness problems”. That there is presently no limit to the time a person can be held without charge he calls “the most obvious deficiency” of the legislation.
But he also recommends the machinery be operated only by skilled lawyers and senior police, which was not the case with Haneef’s detention. “Having regard to the fundamental importance of the extended deprivation of liberty, there is a strong case for requiring the application to be made by more senior officers, trained in the process and familiar with all the facts, including those arising in sensitive material.”
All that is for down the track. Nothing in the report mattered so much to Haneef yesterday as Clarke’s simple exoneration on its opening page: “I could find no evidence that he was associated with or had foreknowledge of the terrorist events or of the possible involvement of his second cousins Dr Sabeel Ahmed and Mr Kafeel Ahmed in terrorist activities.’
“Jabbour gets another caning: “There does not appear to have been any systematic process for recording and updating the information received in the course of the investigation and for keeping track of significant avenues of inquiry for the purposes of assessing the grounds for the belief that Dr Haneef had committed an offence ”
http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/on-day-two-asio-knew-he-was-clean/2008/12/23/1229998528332.html
Noooooo, not a single reason we should be concerned at the conduct of the investigation.
Inspires complete confidence in their ability to catch real terrorists when they show such investigative integrity, honesty and competence (NOT).
95. Sparta Phoenix, AZ USA | December 24, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Now the facetiousness, never fails, and all on the back of hardly knowing a thing about the case he has Haneef guilty and just after the fame and money from the start, and it had nothing at all to do with a government that was fully prepared to completely ruin an innocent man’s life to win an election, a man they knew to be innocent.
Now for the straw men.
Sorry Neil – I will not keep my trap shut.
Joni
Thats O.K. but some proof would be nice. Put yourself in Andrews shoes. Andrews thinks Haneef is up to something. Haneef is a foreign national. What would you do???
Our system of justice is not perfect. Some innocent people have been sent to prison and some guilty people have been set free.
As usual you people have no proof for your accusations. Howard did this for political purposes. Well if he did it didn’t work so it was a poor attempt at manipulation.
I believe that Andrews did what he thought was right. Furthermore I cannot see how throwing someone into prison would win votes.
proof please!!!!
Adrian,
You really need to get a grip man or a life. Stop taking everything so damn personal. People have different views from you, doesn’t mean they are “wingnuts” any more than yourself. I think I better tolerated you when we had the pleasure of Tim’s censorship now we are subject to all of your drunken tirades!
We are putting ourselves in Andrews shoes and it shows that he was willing to persecute and convict an innocent man for political gain.
“I think I better tolerated you when we had the pleasure of Tim’s censorship now we are subject to all of your drunken tirades”
Ah, yes, the good old “I have no good arguments therefore I will accuse you of drunkenness’ defence.’
Sorry, sparta, but NOT GOOD ENOUGH and simply shows the paucity of your arguments.
As for Neil – GSY. We will discuss whatever we like whenever we like and if you don’t like it TOUGH. If you don’t like it feel free to stay away, afterall noone is forcing you to read or participate here (unless, of course, you are being paid to do so).
“Sorry, sparta, but NOT GOOD ENOUGH and simply shows the paucity of your arguments.”
I wasn’t making an argument Sherlock, just trying to figure out why everybody is in such a tuff over this thing. You can read can’t right? So apparently this all boils down to more theories for which we can provide no proof? Sounds oddly familiar??????????????
There you go again Sparta. First knowing very little of the case and nothing of Haneef you have convicted him of being a money grabbing self serving crook.
Then without having a clue what state I’m in you accuse me of being drunk when I haven’t had a drink since last weekend.
Tim never censored me so I haven’t a clue what you are on about but it was you who started making accusations against a person in a case you knew nothing about, so apparently it is against your rules for me to pull you up on that.
People do have different views and these are aired in blogs and forums, as well as counters to those views, that’s what open debating and discussion is about. It seems you believe your point of view should be taken on face value without challenge, and when challenged when you resort to facetiousness which is also to be left alone by without challenge.
If that’s the case that you don’t expect to be challenged then I haven’t a clue why you bother to post on blogs.
“As for Neil – GSY. We will discuss whatever we like whenever we like and if you don’t like it TOUGH.
102. Huh | December 24, 2008 at 12:42 pm”
What a nice comment
Neil
- Read my comment #3 and tell me whether Andrews did the right thing by not asking for ALL the information
- Read my comments that show the inconsistencies between the ministers recollections
- Read how Clarke was denied access to people
- Read how certain former ministers refused to front the inquiry
Remember that Andrews said (before the evidence was brought before court, evidence that was wrong):
This is what Andrews said on the 17th July (even after ASIO told his office on the 2nd July that there was nothing to the allegations):
I think he failed his duties as a Minister of the Crown. Just like Downer did (AWB), just like Reith did (children overboard), just like Ruddock and Vanstone did (Rau et al).
And when the current government ministers fail their duties – we will call them to account as well.
For those above who say Haneef wasn’t fleeing the country, here is Mr Clarke discussing the reasons for “flight” (flight noun the act of fleeing; escape. put someone to flight to cause them to flee. take flight or take to flight to run away):
“. You can read can’t right? ”
Yet further demonstration of Sparta’s brilliant debating capability. Way to go, Sparta, you’ve convinced me (not).
You fail to understand because you don’t want to.
The AFP, who are supposedly responsible for preventing terrorism showed they are incompetent, unable to analyse evidence, unable to properly document their investigations, were biased, withheld information etc etc etc and yet YOU fail to understand why people are concerned?
T of SY,
Note this line in the comment above:
that great caution must be exercised in concluding that flight demonstrates a consciousness of guilt
People use of the term flight on this blog is intended to convey guilt.
I am going on holidays everybody. Have a nice Christmas.
See you all next year
TB
“and he was ignominiously deported – on no evidence”
Don’t think so.
“Before they left Brisbane, Mr Russo said Dr Haneef was not being deported and was leaving Australia voluntarily”
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22150053-29277,00.html
As for :
“He was there for the buck, nothing more”
Sparta, I think that argument has validity. Now he is the United Emirates, presumably being well paid. Nevertheless his treatment at the hands of the previous government was terrible.
“There you go again Sparta. First knowing very little of the case and nothing of Haneef you have convicted him of being a money grabbing self serving crook.”
Yes, that is exactly what I did there Adrian. You got me. Sigh…….
103. Sparta Phoenix, AZ USA | December 24, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Sparta all the facts are there for you to research. This blog cannot bring you up to speed on months of a case leading up to an election where the incumbents were doing very poorly in the polls.
Read the report, the link is here and then do some research. All sides views are available including the real facts, like the actual reason he was leaving Australia and not the false one inferred by the government at the time.
This is such a huge deal because it was the first big test of the much vaunted government’s new terrorist laws, and both the laws and the government failed. It is such a huge deal because it confirmed a government that was willing to do anything to remain in power, even prosecute an innocent man. One of the only reasons the full facts were revealed was due to a Defence lawyer who risked 20 years jail by making public information he was told to keep under wraps. If not for that act Haneef would have been locked up for a long time and the government could have gone into an election claiming to be tough on terrorism and having in place sound and thorough anti-terrorism laws and competent agencies, when in fact as was proven the opposite was the case and the Keystone Cops were ruling the roost.
That government,far from having a sound security regime in place, had a very flawed system full of holes that could have been exploited. And whilst they were wasting the resources of 600 agents on Haneef for political purposes real villainy could have worked undetected. That’s another reason it’s such a big deal.
So for those and several other major reasons it was a huge deal for this country.
“Yet further demonstration of Sparta’s brilliant debating capability. Way to go, Sparta, you’ve convinced me (not).”
Ok, now I am convinced nobody is in the mood for a laugh today. One more time “Huh”, I am not debating anybody!!!!!!!!!
112.
Sigh… facetiousness again…
sparta
We do laugh on this blog – a lot, and normally at my (Neil Diamond) or reb’s (painting) expense.
But this is a serious matter and one that in July 2007 smelt bad – and this report shows us to have been on the money. If you do not think it is a serious matter – then that is your choice.
So what about a comment on Cheney and the further revelations that the torture/enhanced-techniques thread where your own senate is scathing on the administration. Or is that a joking matter too?
And it does get me going when people make statements here and when asked to back them up they say “can’t anyone take a joke”. grrrrrrr
(But still sparta – you are one of the good posters here who gives as good as he gets, and still gives us lots of points to ponder).
“Ok, now I am convinced nobody is in the mood for a laugh today. One more time “Huh”, I am not debating anybody!!!!!!!!!”
Well, Duh! You tried and failed so had to resort to insults. We get it already.
As for a laugh – your posts meant to be funny? Sorry calling someone a drunk because you haven’t got any better argument isn’t funny. I also don’t believe it was ever intended to raise a laugh but to disparage the opinion of someone else.
“It is such a huge deal because it confirmed a government that was willing to do anything to remain in power, even prosecute an innocent man.”
While it may turn out to be the case don’t you see the irony of you and others repeatedly making such claims with as little evidence as those you insist had ulterior motives in the Haneef case? I don’t have to be familiar with the case to know that you will never be satisfied until there is some smoking gun that links Howard to this whole thing; that, I am pretty sure of.
But this is a serious matter and one that in July 2007 smelt bad – and this report shows us to have been on the money.
Seriously joni, this report doesn’t show any such thing. Mistakes were made. There is no evidence of any conspiracy or whatever other malpractice you’re alleging.
Well, Duh! You tried and failed so had to resort to insults. We get it already.
Hardly think you get it but I will attempt one more time. Start from the top of the thread and see who decided to get nasty first. Never been much of a debate here just a question or two. Adrian is a bid boy and a drinker by his own admission. Trust me; he certainly doesn’t need another assistant either, he already has few of those here. If he feels insulted, he will let me know it.
sparta
Why is it ironic?
As opposed to Andrews – we are trying to find out all of the information and are saying that the lack of all of the evidence is worrying (such as the conflicting evidence given to the inquiry, such as people refusing or being refused permission to appear before the inquiry, the fact that Clarke uses words such as “mystifying”, “troubling” etc to refer to why certain actions were taken).
Bloody hell Sparta, where have I said I was a drinker as you are inferring as apart from having a drink? And from that you infer that I was drunk when I make a post contradicting something you stated in ignorance and then resorted to facetiousness when that was pointed out.
And what the hell is a bid boy?
“Sparta, you choose to be on this blog. Dr. Haneef was going about his own business working long hours in a Gold Coast hospital”
Relax; it was just a joke dude.
Sparta, I am not a dude but a female person.
Relax! ..??? It’s Christmas tomorrow and I have a seafood buffet only half done!
Hope that you have a wonderful Christmas. Best wishes MinXXX
…and the forgotten politics as another partial answer to Sparta’s question. The Indian Government made very clear, at the time, that the fair treatment of one of theirs was a paramount concern in diplomatic relations. Those relations directly affect the transfer of skilled labour in the medical field, upon which Australia is reliant, among other reliances upon skilled migrants to this country. As an invitee, and somewhat of a guest, the Government’s(mis)treatment of Haneef reflects upon Australia as an economic destination…for doctors and nurses in the medical segment, students in the higher education segment, and for bilateral trade more generally. One also can’t forget that the 700-strong force of Feds deployed on their witch hunt didn’t limit their activities to ‘investigating’ Haneef, but managed to literally upturn the homes and lives of many other medical professionals from the wider Indian and other ethnic communities for weeks and months, to no appreciable good end.
119. Tony of South Yarra
I think the point it evidences is that there doesn’t need to be any overt conspiracy when the culture is rotten to the core, and everyone is in lockstep as part of that rotten culture. That ‘mistakes were made’ isn’t merely evidence of incompetence, not that merely being incompetent isn’t bad enough in an area where it’s ‘better to be safe than sorry’; it’s evidence that all responsible decision-makers defaulted to an ideology at variance with reality and operated in an uncritically prejudicial and harmful manner, and that they were all very comfortable doing so. Arguably, that such a culture was considered so unexceptional by any of them, especially in relation to a matter of justice affecting a person’s life and liberty, is really the singular concerning finding to come out of the heavily bounded enquiry, imho.
Oh beautiful Legion and so spot on.
Haneef wasn’t the first time that government had usurped a process for ideological reasons and a win at all costs mentality, not because that winning was the best thing for the country, but that remaining in power was their apparent natural right.
That for electoral gain they would use a process that was meant to secure this country and that was aimed at a terribly nasty group of violent people meant they would have had no problem in using that system to suppress any dissent or against any citizen if that meant it advantaged them.
…and just as a final riposte…once again (as I did in relation to torture and Guantanamo, and John Yoo), I nominate the Svengali lawyer at the back of proceedings for the bulk of my ire: in this instance, the dishonourable former A-G Philip Ruddock. It may well be that ambitious Machiavellian operators like Howard and Andrews like to take advantage of legal loopholes in the exercise of their powers, but it always takes an ethically moribund lawyer to draft them a path to achieving those injustices, to the diminution of the fabric of the Law itself.
Tony of South Yarra | December 24, 2008 at 12:05 pm Not exactly like that Min. Haneef was fleeing the country after being warned of the concerns about his sim card..
Dr Haneef had already applied for leave from the Gold Coast hospital in order to visit his new born daughter.
111. Nature 5
Ooops! Sorry AB, er, N5.
…of course, Dr Haneef, could have stayed as long as he wanted – without a visa! Don’t muddy the waters with yer grammatical nonsense…
…BTW whose side are you on – oh! that’s right – ride the middle – play the role – social experiment…
SPARTA
Put simply Dr Haneef, could have been any one of us…
…the issue for me (will not speak for others) is one of JUSTICE.
Given the present laws, Dr Haneef, could have been me, any of my adult family or friends…on any suspicion…
…if we have such laws they must be handled carefully and properly…
…if laws are mishandled, then society runs the risk of reverting to anarchy…anarchy hurts the poor and the weak…
…bad or mishandled laws, hurt – the poor and the weak…
…I doubt that the “leftoids” on this blog see the issue as Dr Haneef but one of social and civil justice…just as David Hicks issues wasn’t about him but about the lack of legal process and the “manipulation” of a legal system that had taken us back to the Dark Ages…
…your comments @ 95. Sparta Phoenix, AZ USA , make me think that you know more about Australia than you let on…Queensland beachhouse…hey?
…Gawd, not another social experimenter…?
Min @ 128:
According to Mr clarke QC – at comment 107 – that was not his sole motive for leaving:
Tony. Chicken versus egg. Dr Haneef had already applied for leave but hadn’t been permitted leave until he had found a replacement for his shift. In the interim he found out that ’someone’ in the media had suggested that his SIM card could have a link to someone in the UK with some sort of a link to terrorism.
130. Tony of South Yarra
Well, bloody hell, that last point is a bit unreasonable and silly isn’t it.
I could just imagine you working in Pakistan and finding out something similar…cool, calm and collected…my name is Bond, Tony Bond…no problems…yeah right!
Legion @ 125
That’s a novel theory, but that’s all it is.There is no evidence of anything other than what Clarke QC thinks were poor decisions. He makes no assertions about anything else – ideology-wise or any other wise.
In fact he specifically states – comment 62 – “I found no evidence of conspiracy or an improper purpose” – which makes your accusations worth nothing.
TB 132
Merely pointing out what the man said. You’re right though, in his shoes I would probably have done the same.
133. Tony of South Yarra
BS – it just means Clarke found no evidence, doesn’t mean there isn’t any – bit like being found not guilty – doesn’t mean you’re innocent – especially in your case
TB 135
Yes TB, but until some is produced, everything else is pure speculation, and – dare I say it – conspiracy theories.
136. Tony of South Yarra
Ya just did…!
Must go back and check The Howard Years – if I recall there was a couple of odd remarks made about The Haneef Affair…
…and I do reckon their was a conspiracy to “make the laws work” – I grew up during the Joh Bjelke Peterson era!
133. Tony of South Yarra
Now you are just being obtuse, Tony. Having clearly prefaced that no conspiracy is necessary when there is a flawed culture, you then go on to address and vanquish a strawman argument I didn’t make? Onya! Meanwhile, back in an objective reality, Clarke QC’s Report is replete with observations that those many, many ‘mistakes’ are the direct consequences of the subjective mindsets of the involved parties, amounting to an ideology or ideologies at distinct variance with any facts, then or since. That somebody drafted themselves up a set of anti-terror laws which allows subjective mindsets, and decisions flowing from them, to effectively go unchecked, regardless of actual knowledges or constructive knowledges which differ from their preferred subjective reality and operative, if critically unexamined ideology, really is the crux of the issue. The Clarke Report is nothing but a catalog of concatenating ideological lapses. How that escapes your awareness is beyond my comprehension.
138. Legion
Go, Legion!
Legion,
I stand by what I said. Evidence that mistakes were made is not in any way “evidence that all responsible decision-makers defaulted to an ideology at variance with reality and operated in an uncritically prejudicial and harmful manner, and that they were all very comfortable doing so”.
However, if you can quote the Clarke enquiry criticising the motives of any of those involved, I may reconsider my position.
TB @ 139
Hey, whose side are you on anyway, TB?
Oh, that’s right, the other side.
141. Tony of South Yarra
Truth, justice and the Aussie Way!
I was just mesmerised that someone could use so many big words in one paragraph…
Whatever.
Hey TB, have a good one.
Ta, scaper, say hello to scapette for me!
Will do…
140. Tony of South Yarra
The whole Report, Tony, reaching a crescendo at pp.175-177 (watch the activities of Mr White as he bounces around between the OPM&C and DIAC, not that it isn’t fascinating to read that Mr Howard absolutely relies on an unverified self-account of a morning meeting which apparently discussed nothing important, and if it did discuss anything it was that Andrews was sole decision-maker and Mr Howard was just having a nice chat to reinforce that, while Mr Ruddock independently denies ever having attended any such meeting, although it seems well-accepted that he was there, but he undoubtedly remained very silent on legal matters, not that he was there, according to him…if there’s an answer to the mystifying and puzzling behaviour of Andrews, it is most suggestive on that occasion, and it’s pretty evident to this trained eye, and no doubt anyone who reads the Report, that forgetful Phil and Honest John, who wouldn’t release his staff member to aver to the veracity of Mr Howard’s recollections, lumbered Andrews with the hatchet job on Haneef so that Phil didn’t get his hands dirty as the A-G responsible for signing off on the flawed anti-terror charges and now irrelevant criminal justice stay certificate, which would have been the natural course of things; and given that the whole debacle, otherwise, was in Phil’s lap, and he had read both the AFP and ASIO briefings and couldn’t possibly have feigned ignorance of discrepancies without it coming back to bite him on the ass). From pre-prepared talking points and teleconferences, to cherry-picked and purpose-solicited information collections from agencies as bases for ‘contingencies’ and advices for ministerial advisors and decision-makers, the whole thing was an orchestrated campaign to avoid administering ‘natural justice’ and to ‘get’ their man, one way or another.
TB is always much more succinct: it’s about equity, not law; and, ultimately, it’s about justice.
I guess it all depends on whether or not one considers an orchestrated campaign by the State to rely on crafty laws, specifically drafted to avoid judicial checks and balances, and to avoid delivering natural justice outcomes as a specific end, is an acceptable standard of either Law or behaviour by elected and unelected officialdom at the level of Australian political, public service, and legal cultures.
Having said all that, though, I really did enjoy Clarke’s consistent tongue-in-cheek style…particularly the bit where he suggested that the next time an Australian Government chooses to go down the characterisations and associations path to enliven natural justice avoidance, to get a real lawyer to coordinate the crossing of T’s and dotting of I’s on what is handed up to a Minister…I guess all of the tricky legal scheming was for nought when the thing had to be done both at arm’s length and within the Chinese walls of a whole-of-government approach; or, maybe, schemes cooked up on the fly to impress the Australian public, err, actions taken with a view to a perception of what some putative Australian public might want to see happen (a motive referenced in the Report, and clearly attributed to Andrews, the deeply reflective and independent thinker whose decision-making processes wouldn’t have changed no matter what information he was shown in briefings or of which he was otherwise generally aware, but studiously avoided enquiring into) simply aren’t half as smart as they first appeared when gone over with a fine-tooth comb after the event. Just mystifying. Absolutely, completely, unfathomably, astoundingly, mind-bogglingly mystifying. But non sequitur faux pas and ellipsis are like that; there must be a gap somewhere in the accounts; and, if it were a puzzle, one just might have a perfect fix on what the shape of that missing piece of the jigsaw is, if not its exact content, simply from manifest and well-evidenced surroundings: res ipsa loquitur. No recommendations.