Presumption Of Innocence [Archive]

Sturdee

26th July 2007, 11:18 PM

So the question, in this era of terrorists, is should presumption of guilt apply to all suspected terrorists?

Yes, but in countries where the presumption of guilt applies it is the Magistrate, who with your help, actually conducts the search for your innocence.

The police based on the initial enquiries makes the arrest and then the Magistrate takes over and directs and supervises the police investigation. So the police is subject to judicial direction in their further investigations.

Same effect as our system provided that you co-operate and help the investigation, but keeping silent will hinder your case.

Btw in most of those countries there are no juries only Magistrates and Judges decide your guilt, so guilty people are not usually let of by the defence lawyers bamboozling juries.

Peter.

echnidna

26th July 2007, 11:30 PM

so yer really don't wanna upset the beak :D

I suppose it works, they got the Bali 9

Sturdee

26th July 2007, 11:40 PM

I suppose it works, they got the Bali 9

It works, as most of the world uses that system. Only England and their former colonies have the other system.

If Napoleon had succeded in his wars against England we would have it too for it is based on his code of laws, which he enforced on most european countries through his conquests.

Peter.

Grunt

27th July 2007, 01:29 AM

After reading this I decided to do a bit of research. Came across this from Wikipedia.

The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_and_Fundamental_Freedoms) of the Council of Europe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Europe) says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty) and is binding on all Council of Europe members. Currently (and in any foreseeable expansion of the EU) every country member of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union) is also member to the Council of Europe, so this stands for EU members as a matter of course.

Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presumption_of_innocence)

This basically says that there is a presumption of innocence for all European countries.

The presumption of guilt does allow for someone or groups to be targeted. Look at the Haneef case. How does he prove that he didn't know that his cousin was a terrorist? And that he had no involvement in the UK attacks?

bitingmidge

27th July 2007, 08:59 AM

keeping silent will hinder your case.

Ahh yes, "Anything you say will be written down and may be used in evidence againt you".

"Everything l say officer?"

"Yes, everything you say."

"OK, write this down: -
PLEASE OFFICER, DON'T HIT ME AGAIN, PLEASE DON'T!!!"

:p
P

craigb

27th July 2007, 10:19 AM

but keeping silentC will hinder your case.

Yes, I would have thought so too. :D :D :D

Grunt

27th July 2007, 10:31 AM

but keeping silentC will hinder your case.

Keeping a silentC? Why would you want to?

silentC

27th July 2007, 10:33 AM

Yuk yuk yuk :D

Sebastiaan56

27th July 2007, 12:11 PM

I thought that was what the media is for..... sorry, couldnt resist.

Presumption of guilt is effectively what happens when the facts get reported, when there is no shock there is no reporting. The court of public opinion lives on half facts. Take Mr Haneef, we will never know, effectively he has been declared guilty by the minister. The Court case is only a show.

As for terrorists, the violent kind need to be located and dealt with, preemptively..., risky when you get it wrong..... after an event....., pity the political masters with the brief. I think when we allow the terrorist fear to get us they have already won. Western society is built on an ideal of personal freedom, at the very least the freedom to consume. When personal freedoms get eroded (including the presumption of innocence) they have won.

My biggest problem is the term "terrorist". By this I assume we mean a person who instills fear or terror. Broad bunch that one. Every "warning" from a pollie on any subject qualifies to some degree. Maybe we could return to the cold war, the enemy was well defined then, now we just get a warning that there is a "credible threat" and people get scared. I think its a control tactic and those pinpointed as "terrorists" are puppets to support the status quo. How many of the incarcerated "suspects" have turned out to be the real deal, I suspect we will never been given the facts.

Sebastiaan

silentC

27th July 2007, 12:23 PM

Come on now, we all know that presumption of innocence is just a term that's bandied about to make people think that we are enlightened. We all know the real story. There's no doubt these terrorist types are guilty, you can tell just by looking at them. I mean, look at this Haneef bloke - he looks like a terrorist to me in that grainy black and white. And what about the picture of him in a jumpsuit hiding his head. What's he got to hide? Guilty as sin!

Now what's this about the minister for immigration? He's only doing his job. The two matters are not connected, he's just doing what I've been calling for now for a long time. Anyone who is a bit dodgy, looks suspicious, or talks funny should be banged up and deported. If they were born here, deport 'em anyway. What do we have the character test for if we're not going to use it, for heaven's sake?

Bloody chardy sipping bleeding heart liberals, the lot of 'em!

rrich

27th July 2007, 12:31 PM

The presumption of innocence concept would be perfect if the purpose of the court was the search for the truth. Unfortunately.........

bitingmidge

27th July 2007, 01:01 PM

What's he got to hide? Guilty as sin!

No Silent, show some compassion. He clearly isn't hiding.

That photo is a picture of a man in despair.

Do you blame him? He was being transported to his new digs, and they'd just told him that his new home is just outside....

IPSWICH!! :wink:

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

silentC

27th July 2007, 01:06 PM

Well at least he wont get killed by tiles falling off the wall in the bathroom!

(Why do I always want to spell it IPSWITCH?)

Actually, the whole episode is turning into a debacle. Looks like they're about to drop the case. How do they keep getting things so wrong?

I admire the way Johnnie has handled it though. One of those times he probably thanks god for the separation of powers...

pawnhead

27th July 2007, 01:16 PM

As for terrorists, the violent kind need to be located and dealt with, preemptively..., risky when you get it wrong..... after an event....., Very risky, as this whole debacle in Iraq has taught us. Just where are these WMDs?

Here’s an article that I found posted in another forum. It’s a long, but interesting read;
Iraq Vets Bear Witness (http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070730/hedges)

"I guess while I was there, the general attitude was, A dead Iraqi is just another dead Iraqi, you know, so what?”

"The frustration that resulted from our inability to get back at those who were attacking us led to tactics that seemed designed simply to punish the local population that was supporting them,"

“So you've just humiliated this man in front of his entire family and terrorized his entire family and you've destroyed his home. And then you go right next door and you do the same thing in a hundred homes."

"We don't go around like detectives and ask questions. We kick down doors, we go in, we grab people."

In the thousand or so raids he conducted during his time in Iraq, Sergeant Westphal said, he came into contact with only four "hard-core insurgents."

“Oh, this is a guy planting a roadside bomb'--and you don't even know if it's him or not--you just go in there and kick the ???? out of him and take him in the back of a five-ton--take him to jail."

"They were wearing Arab clothing and military-style boots, they were considered enemy combatants and you would cuff 'em and take 'em in,"

"I remember on some raids, anybody of military age would be taken,"

"I knew that a large percentage of these prisoners were innocent,"

Specialist Murphy said one prisoner, a mentally impaired, blind albino who could "maybe see a few feet in front of his face" clearly did not belong in Abu Ghraib. "I thought to myself, What could he have possibly done?"

They open the body bags of these prisoners that were shot in the head and [one soldier has] got an MRE spoon. He's reaching in to scoop out some of his brain, looking at the camera and he's smiling. And I said, 'These are some of our soldiers desecrating somebody's body. Something is seriously amiss.'

"a lot of guys really supported that whole concept that, you know, if they don't speak English and they have darker skin, they're not as human as us, so we can do what we want."

(Lots of other gruesome stuff. Murders, brutality etc.)

Last September, Senator Patrick Leahy, then ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, called a Pentagon report on its procedures for recording civilian casualties in Iraq "an embarrassment." "It totals just two pages," Leahy said, "and it makes clear that the Pentagon does very little to determine the cause of civilian casualties or to keep a record of civilian victims."

pity the political masters with the brief. I suppose we’ve got to be thankful that it's not as bad as that in Australia.

Good onya Johnny boy (http://au.geocities.com/daveclarkecb/Cartoons/BushHoward.jpg). Keep supporting Bush (http://www.office-humour.co.uk/content/images/2007/07/6194.jpg) with that brief:
“…it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. … All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger.” - Hermann Goering

Grunt

27th July 2007, 01:33 PM

The laws that are passed in the name of fighting terrorism is just frightening.

Bush has just signed an executive order criminalising the anti-war movement.

(i) to have committed, or to pose a significant risk of committing, an act or acts of violence that have the purpose or effect of:
(A) threatening the peace or stability of Iraq or the Government of Iraq; or
(B) undermining efforts to promote economic reconstruction and political reform in Iraq or to provide humanitarian assistance to the Iraqi people;
(ii) to have materially assisted, sponsored, or provided financial, material, logistical, or technical support for, or goods or services in support of, such an act or acts of violence or any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order; or
(iii) to be owned or controlled by, or to have acted or purported to act for or on behalf of, directly or indirectly, any person whose property and interests in property are blocked pursuant to this order.

Link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/07/20070717-3.html)

Fricken scary really.

TEEJAY

27th July 2007, 01:46 PM

No Silent, show some compassion. He clearly isn't hiding.

That photo is a picture of a man in despair.

Do you blame him? He was being transported to his new digs, and they'd just told him that his new home is just outside....

IPSWICH!! :wink:

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

Could have been a lot worse really - could have been just INSIDE Ipswich :D

Bleedin Thumb

27th July 2007, 02:29 PM

The laws that are passed in the name of fighting terrorism is just frightening.

Bush has just signed an executive order criminalising the anti-war movement.

Fricken scary really.

Its just as bad here where our own personal freedoms has been eroded by the government in the name of "the war on terror" when as now is being demonstrated the government can't be trusted to administer justice.

Our forefathers fought real wars, shed blood and died to protect our freedom and our civil rights how come these rights can be wiped away with the stroke of a pen without consulting the population by some politician who is morally and ideologically bankrupt?

Do we need a bill of rights in this county?...America has one I think and it doesn't seem to be helping over there.

How can we enshrine basic human and legal rights in our constitution to protect us from political whims or politicians who don't have the peoples best interest at heart?

The way things are going, if we don't correct this situation soon I will fear for my kids growing up in this society.:(

TEEJAY

27th July 2007, 02:40 PM

Sadly you are right BT but the freedoms we so richly enjoy are taken advantage of by those perpetrating terror and the catch 22 is to deny them some advantage takes away some of our freedom and in sense is a victory for them - is there a balance?? Most likely not.

What is the root of most terror is it having a global society and with that come all the hate people have for one another as they have more access to each other they didn't find so readily years ago except during a war and invasion?

Could we be redneck and eradicate all who don't fit our ideal or appear a threat (Hitler ideology) or refuse them access by example UK has more terror cuz it has more people from where they originate - are we wrong to profile people - there is no easy or comfortable solution - but what will society accept?

Capt. Zero

27th July 2007, 03:19 PM

If, in the name of safety, we trade off our rights, we find ourselves on the slippery slope towards totalitarianism. (There was a wonderful quote from T. Paine that put it so much better than I ever could.) I haven't a clue how OZ is reacting to the worldwide terrorism hysteria, but the direction we in the US are heading is truly frightening. Silent C, what does a terrorist look like? Anyone different than you?

"Who are you Mr. John Q. Smith?"
"Well, you"re one of us!...we think...maybe.."

silentC

27th July 2007, 03:22 PM

Don't you have satire in the US? :wink:

BTW did you take your name from The Mixtures hit?

Capt. Zero

27th July 2007, 03:25 PM

OOps. Sorry. I'm just a little touchy (touched?) about this subject.:(

Sebastiaan56

27th July 2007, 03:31 PM

I haven't a clue how OZ is reacting to the worldwide terrorism hysteria, but the direction we in the US are heading is truly frightening. "

Our leader is Bush's great mate and stalwart supporter. He has also been honoured by the Republican party over there. If he wins this election and retires I reckon he'll become the ambassador to the US.

Our situation is similar to yours. We have a game going here called "tough on terror" which has basically eroded rights of association, free speech and engendered a culture of secrecy. Im not sure there is a polly who has the guts to call it out for what it is. There is a war of terror going on, its used to get re-elected.

BTW, I think I like this Obama guy, he's willing to talk to the leaders of the axis of evil! There might be hope for the west yet,

Sebastiaan

Capt. Zero

27th July 2007, 03:38 PM

Don't know what BTW means. Obama seems like a nice guy, but neither he nor any 'pretender' has taken a stand on...well anything really. We don't have candidates here, we have auditions.

"Mr. President, where can I get a job?"
"Well, in the future, we don't expect to have those kind of problems, son."

silentC

27th July 2007, 03:39 PM

BTW = By the way.

Bleedin Thumb

27th July 2007, 03:39 PM

Sadly you are right BT but the freedoms we so richly enjoy are taken advantage of by those perpetrating terror and the catch 22 is to deny them some advantage takes away some of our freedom and in sense is a victory for them - is there a balance?? Most likely not.
I'm not sure I agree with that line. If we can't deal with a terrorist investigation using existing intelligence and investigative measures then we can't effectively carryout every other criminal investigation which clearly is not the case.

What is the root of most terror is it having a global society and with that come all the hate people have for one another as they have more access to each other they didn't find so readily years ago except during a war and invasion?

I think if anything the fact that the world getting smaller logically would lead to a better understanding and tollerance of other cultures and religious beliefs, clearly this is not the case - My opinion as to why this is the case is due to our politicians past and present that have used prejudice and mistrust as a smokescreen so that they can further their own gains.

Could we be redneck and eradicate all who don't fit our ideal or appear a threat (Hitler ideology) or refuse them access by example UK has more terror cuz it has more people from where they originate - are we wrong to profile people - there is no easy or comfortable solution - but what will society accept?

No, because by doing this you perpetuate the hatred, prejudice and mistrust that breeds terrorism.

I don't think it is luck that has seen Australia largely free from terrorist attack until now. We have until recently had a fairly tollerant society that gave everyone a fair go. No hatred or repression - No terrorism
Edit I should also add that until recently we havent taken a bully boy approach in impossing our will on other countries.

TEEJAY

27th July 2007, 03:50 PM

BT I wish you were right but to a drug addict or a terrorist the compassionate sypathiser is the first target.

Being global and getting closer to each other doesn't necessarily create love and understanding but rather opportunity for my first sentence.

BTW I wish you were right.

silentC

27th July 2007, 04:20 PM

SMH:

The Commonwealth Director of Public prosecutions has dropped the terror charge against Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef.

Commonwealth prosecutors withdrew the charge of supporting a terrorist organisation in Brisbane Magistrates Court this afternoon.

Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions Damian Bugg and Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty will hold a joint press conference this afternoon.

The conference has been scheduled for 3.30pm (AEST) in Canberra.

TEEJAY

27th July 2007, 04:24 PM

SMH:

By all accounts they made a complete botch of this case

silentC

27th July 2007, 04:25 PM

I wonder if they'll give him back his visa? I wonder if he'll still want it!

craigb

27th July 2007, 04:30 PM

I wonder if they'll give him back his visa? I wonder if he'll still want it!

No apparently there are "other matters" that we're not allowed to know about that mean he can't have his visa back (according to Andrews). :rolleyes:

Bleedin Thumb

27th July 2007, 04:33 PM

.

BTW I wish you were right.

Its hard to know who is right these days because we are fed a lot of lies and misinformation by our politicians via an obliging media, which brings me back to why its important to enshrine freedoms... in this case the freedom of the press to tell us the truth (i'm refering to the anti-sedition laws) not that there seems to be any free press left in this country.:((

Thanks Rupert et al

TEEJAY

27th July 2007, 04:34 PM

No apparently there are "other matters" that we're not allowed to know about that mean he can't have his visa back (according to Andrews). :rolleyes:

"A rowdy protest group has formed at the Brisbane Magistrates Court demanding compensation for the doctor, who has been in custody for 25 days."

Wonder how much he will get if anything?

Ahh the many twists and turns of the department of immigration they will most likely turn a 1 million dollar compensation into 7 million :rolleyes:

silentC

27th July 2007, 04:35 PM

If I was him, I would sit out detention and let them send me back to India and never set foot in this country again.

TEEJAY

27th July 2007, 04:37 PM

[quote=TE

Its hard to know who is right these days because we are fed a lot of lies and misinformation by our politicians via an obliging media, which brings me back to why its important to enshrine freedoms... in this case the freedom of the press to tell us the truth (i'm refering to the anti-sedition laws) not that there seems to be any free press left in this country.:((

Thanks Rupert et al

Yep truth is often lost in the sale of a paper or news story.

I like the freedom to bear arms, but hey that hasn't done so well either, I still like it :)

TEEJAY

27th July 2007, 04:43 PM

If I was him, I would sit out detention and let them send me back to India and never set foot in this country again.

Can be a long time - detention works in years not day or months.

Where he is from is not appealing to him either. He seems to have support of his workplace and many around him here. If he went through this by his own govt in his own country I doubt it would rate a mention in their news.

Travel oversaes and they laugh at our news it is so preoccupied with trivial issues such as the rights of one person - in their country it is about many deaths/slavery/real terrorism/plague all real juicy stuff not the fluffy feal good stuff we become so obsessed with.

Hicks would have been shot in the paddock.

Bleedin Thumb

27th July 2007, 04:44 PM

If I was him, I would sit out detention and let them send me back to India and never set foot in this country again.

I was going to suggest that I would take up arms.... but then I read Teejays post and realised that Im not allowed to.:(

TermiMonster

27th July 2007, 06:56 PM

... If we can't deal with a terrorist investigation using existing intelligence and investigative measures then..........
Intelligence???? Didn't the government sack the only intelligence agent we have that got the WMD info on Iraq correct (Andrew Wilkie). By rights, they should sack the whole ONA (is that what it's called?), re-employ him and listen to what he says, rather than tell the ONA et al what to say.
Go on....tell me I'm wrong:cool:
TM

Gingermick

27th July 2007, 08:29 PM

Ok you're wrong :D:D:D:D

TermiMonster

27th July 2007, 09:46 PM

Ok you're wrong :D:D:D:D
Hey, smart**s, you might know highjacks, but I know highjinks! (and regularly practice:D)

Gingermick

27th July 2007, 10:23 PM

Hey, smart**s,

I always thought being a smart**s was better than being a dumb**s. :wink:
However, you did ask someone to tell you that you were wrong, and I knew that the statement was rhetorical, however I couldn't resist. :2tsup:

dazzler

27th July 2007, 10:35 PM

By all accounts they made a complete botch of this case

Maybe, maybe not.

Unless I got my time line wrong he was detained at the airport before the evidence (incorrect it seems) about the sim card was found.

So I would suggest it went something like this;

UK terrorist act occurs (crashing jeep etc) and UK police find link to our man in OZ. Not the sim yet as that was found from memory later after our man was grabbed.

UK notify OZ who then put a pass alert for if he tries to leave the country and should (would?) have organised for a surveillence team to find and track him. Now to get a pass alert there must be some evidence/intell that he has done something and that is to the level of reasonable suspicion. (not belief as in court)

Low and behold he turns up at the airport with a one way ticket home while he has a job and visa here.

Based upon that it would seem there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he may be involved in some way in a terrorist act OS and to detain him to find out just what the hell is going on and the application of the anti terrorist laws were applied.

I would bet london to a brick that the preferred option would always have been surv/phones off/ build a case but the case was forced by his impended departure.

I doubt we will know the reasons he first came under the spotlight however I would suggest they are the reasons his visa was cancelled. he can now have this judicially reviewed in which case the govt will have to put up or shut up.

He was charged with an offence which was later dropped and he is a free (well home detention re visa cancellation :rolleyes: ), if not confused and maybe cranky, doctor. I would suggest the system, though not perfect, appears to have worked in this case.

Metal Head

28th July 2007, 11:22 PM

if not confused and maybe cranky, doctor. I would suggest the system, though not perfect, appears to have worked in this case.

How did you come to that conclusion Dazzler? The Doctor was released without charge but they (the government) couldn't wait to get him out of the country before the media could find out his side of the story. I get the feeling that you think it is OK for innocent people to be kicked out of this country at will - without justice. How many lives have you saved whilst you have been on this planet. Have you ever met this Doctor - No I didn't think so but you are prepared to make aspersion's from what you read. Well my cousin has worked with him and she has told me that he was a very well liked Doctor who will be sadly be missed by his collegues as well as his grateful patients.

This is just another con job / bungling / cover up / incompetent act by this joke of a government. Remember what happened to Cornelia Rau, Children Overboard, and Weapon’s of Mass Destruction? It makes this country’s credibility a joke in international circles.

Btw, Kevin Rudd should hang his head in shame. 99% of Australians had the intelligence and awareness to sift through Government propaganda and speak their hearts out (including the Greens leader Sen Bob Brown). He too probably knew there was nothing to incriminate Dr. Haneef. Yet Rudd didn’t have the guts to take a risk and condemn the Howard government. Grow a spine, before you aspire to be the Prime Minister of the best country in the World. If left to me he nor Howard will be Prime Minister after the next election. To think they (politicians) will have had a 14% rise in the past couples of years - s--t decisions = more money in the pocket:no:.

MH

dazzler

29th July 2007, 10:17 AM

Daddles

29th July 2007, 12:25 PM

So this poor bugger is accused of terrorism based on ... very flamin' little as it turns out. He's cleared but we kick him out of the country anyway.

That's justice alright.

Leaving aside the 'quick reaction to intelligence' argument, once again, we should be ashamed of our govt's actions. I'm sorry, but I don't see protecting a political ar5e as justification abuse of anyone's rights, whether they be a citizen or not.

Richard

echnidna

29th July 2007, 12:28 PM

How do you propose we should handle the threat of terrorism?

Article99

29th July 2007, 01:37 PM

Don't get me wrong. If Osama and his mates rock up in Croydon South, yeah, half the population will go Glasgow style and kick the daylights out of them. If an Indian doctor moves into the house next door and opens a practice down the road, how is that terrorism?

Oh, because his cousin is a terrorist. Right. Anyone here from a really big family? Every family's got a few rotten apples. How do we know that wasn't that case?

We don't. Nor do we know if he is/was actually an Australian citizen. Before someone jumps on the moral high-ground, know that this part is not a question of character. It's a question of numbers.

We have 20million odd people living in Aus. The more people that come in, the cheaper wages get and ultimately, the harder making a living is. To that end, immigration does need to be a controlled to a finite entry into the country.

Hence, if the good doctor is not an Australian citizen and his Visa has expired, then yes, it is time for him to go home until he can make other arrangements if he so desires.

One interesting thing, which I'll most probably get flamed for, but am still curious about...

You go to a Christian, Hindu or Buddhist place of worship and they'll show you around and tell you what their beliefs are all about with quite a bit of enthusiasm.

You go to a Mosque and the doors are firmly shut to all outsiders.

Has been that way for many, many years. Not just the ones that they'd publicly been called terrorists.

Don't get me wrong, I'm an atheist. I'm not here to start a ?????-fight over religion. Am just curious is all.

TermiMonster

29th July 2007, 02:39 PM

...
You go to a Mosque and the doors are firmly shut to all outsiders.

....
I don't necessarily agree with that. My local mosque recently had an open day, all welcome.
I couldn't make it myself (not that interested:wink:) but the offer was there and the sentiment appredciated.
Also, Muslims are very open to converts (like all the rest), so I'd say you are just plain wrong on that one.
TM

bitingmidge

29th July 2007, 03:19 PM

Low and behold he turns up at the airport with a one way ticket home while he has a job and visa here. Based upon that it would seem there are reasonable grounds to suspect that he may be involved in some way in a terrorist act OS and to detain him to find out just what the hell is going on and the application of the anti terrorist laws were applie
Now that's what I call grounds for arresting someone!!

My daughter and son-in-law will be turning up at Heathrow shortly with a one-way ticket home while they have a job and visa there. It's actually the return leg of a return ticket, but it's one-way none the less. I suppose we'd better pray there's no terrorist attack in the next day or two?

Oh, and they'll be leaving on a one-way ticket back, and out of Brisbane too. I guess that makes them suspicious?

I doubt we will know the reasons he first came under the spotlight however I would suggest they are the reasons his visa was cancelled. he can now have this judicially reviewed in which case the govt will have to put up or shut up.
But the onus is on him now, is it not, to prove his innocence, having thus far proved the incompetence of those who were out to bring him in?

He was charged with an offence which was later dropped and he is a free (well home detention re visa cancellation :rolleyes: ), if not confused and maybe cranky, doctor. I would suggest the system, though not perfect, appears to have worked in this case.

How has the system worked? A bloke is doing his job one day, arranges to go and pick up his wife and kid to bring them out here, goes to pick them up and gets arrested.

As a result of not being found guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever, he now doesn't have a job, a place to live, and has been left with a squillion dollar legal bill.

I have no problems with him being arrested by the way, just with the stupidity that's gone on since.

Cheers,

P

echnidna

29th July 2007, 03:24 PM

How do you propose we should handle the threat of terrorism?

any suggestions?

Metal Head

29th July 2007, 03:24 PM

Hi MH

It has worked because a person who was suspected of involvement in a terrorist act was taken into custody, the case investigated, he was charged and then the matter reviewed and the charges dropped he was released. The laws were introduced for just this type of incident where the police need time to investigate a case against someone when there is a fear that to not do so may result in the deaths of many by a terrorist act. The guilt or innocence is not for the investigators to decide but whether there is a case to answer.

No dazzler remember - they (the investigators) had charged him of providing support to a terrorist organisation (which was dropped due to insufficient evidence). Thus he HAD to prove he was innocentI wonder if you would be so happy about the process if YOU had been the VICTIM of this stuff up?

As for his visa cancellation, what I have suggested is that the evidence / intel that brought him to notice in the first place (pass alert at the airport) is the reason for his visa cancellation and this does not need to be to the level of belief but of suspicion. And by the way, if they wanted him out of the country they would not have detained him in the first place but cancelled his visa while he was away.

Finally three things;

1. I have saved three lives (got no idea how that is important but it seems to be some how )

2. No I have never met the dr and I am sure he is delightful, quietly spoken and polite. So is our dear friend Osama if you take the time to study his early interview . Nice people do bad things sometimes. Niceness does not prevent investigation.

3. I am not making aspersions on the dr's character, simply outlining how/why I think the matter progressed the way it did.

4. Cornelia was a stuff up by the immigration dept who had a culture that was disgraceful and treated anyone from OS with suspicion. The dept has been overhauled and the culture has definately changed. (Means nada here)

5. Kids overboard was a disgrace. (Ditto)

6. WMD was a disgrace. (Ditto)

7. Dont ya think the SMH or today tonight might just be able to find him when he arrives in India to report his story?

Dazzler that is 7 (seven) things mate - you must have worked for this government's treasury department at sometime:wink:.

Perhaps you could explain how the matter should have been handled?

I don't have to. The Australian Council for civil Liberties will tell you for me -

The Australian Council for Civil Liberties said it would make a public interest complaint to the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity about the handling of the Haneef case by the AFP, Director of Public Prosecutions and the immigration department.

The group's president Terry O'Gorman said the integrity commissioner should investigate whether there had been an abuse of office.

“To leave the investigation of what went wrong to internal closed reviews by the AFP and the DPP respectively will lead to the inevitable cynicism which flows from law enforcement agencies and public prosecutors conducting inquiries into themselves,” Mr O'Gorman said.

Anyway we will be able to find out his side of the story tonight on 60 minutes who are paying him $150,000 for the interview. Which I dare say will be the stake that killed our inept PM and show his sub commanders as being the spineless people they are

MH

cheers dazzler

pawnhead

29th July 2007, 04:35 PM

It looks to me that it comes down more to this British investigation with the sim card business.

Either way, we haven't got all the facts.

dazzler

29th July 2007, 04:50 PM

Hey MH

Started out as 3 but added more :rolleyes: :D .

No he didnt have to prove his innocence. He was charged and bailed for the matter to be heard before a jury. In the meantime the evidence was found to be flawed and the matter withdrawn.

What many are failing to see is that is the system that we operate under. The police dont decide guilt but put forward a case. The system did work. He wasnt verballed, tortured or beaten. He was detained for a fortnight which would not have been fun and if there has been a breach of due process then he is and should be entitled to compensation.

Come on Midge, its not like you to quote out of context :wink: . That statement about a one way ticket is combined with all the rest of what would have been going on and is only the final part that pushed the investigation into using these laws.

What I am basing my support of the use of these laws is as follows;

He was detained at the airport attempting to leave. He would have come to notice by an alert when he attempted to go through customs. This is called a Pass Alert.

How do you get a pass alert? The matter or person comes to police notice, this could be through a warrant, family order or intell from other govt agencies. The AFP gets the info and it is considered for investigation. No resources are put into a case until it has been considered on the evidence available and its urgency/importance is evaluated.

The case then proceeds to the Operations Monitoring Committee which is a group of experienced members of various ranks who again consider whether it warrants investigation and If there is sufficient evidence then it is passed to a team.

The team then review it, begin an investigation and in most cases of this kind would put a surveillance team and other covert measures in to determine if there is a prima facie case before bringing the person in for an interview. If they feel there is a danger of flight then they put a pass alert out. This is reviewed by a senior officer and then sent to another area who evaluate it and then it is sent to customs who review it.

So put briefly, before he was detained at the airport there was enough intel for the matter to have began to be investigated and enough to have a pass alert which is no small thing. So as an investigator what would you do if you were in thier position. You have just had three seperate attempted terrorist attacks in an allied country. All were alleged to have been committed by educated and nice doctors and your target is linked to them. (Remembering of course that in order to get the Pass Alert there needs to be some evidence that something isnt quiet right:) )

Do you let him leave?. What if he was part of a cell here? Are there other members ready to attack here? Has he left a device (car bomb?) here that is ready to go?.

Hard questions. How would you deal with it. (MH leaves it to others but whines on the way :rolleyes: ). Let him go and hope nothing happens. Let india deal with it?.

Or do you use the new laws to detain him while you sort it out? I would choose the latter. Maybe you would take the risk and just throw your hands up if it goes pair shaped.:(

Yes the ombudsman should review the case, but thats not what we are talking about are we:rolleyes: .

Also, cast your mind back to when it first started to come out in the media and they were interviewing an associate of the dr and how the commissioner of the AFP was so adamant that he was innocent and was of no concern and was helping police etc... Hardly supports the theories that they were out to get anyone.

bitingmidge

29th July 2007, 05:38 PM

What many are failing to see is that is the system that we operate under. The police dont decide guilt but put forward a case. The system did work. He wasnt verballed, tortured or beaten. He was detained for a fortnight which would not have been fun and if there has been a breach of due process then he is and should be entitled to compensation.
I think the only bit I disagree with is the "breach of due process", and even there you are correct. Clearly there was smoke, but I wondered even about the charge. I didn't know it was illegal to recklessly handle my sim card!

I'm not sure about the verballed bit, if some of the "reports" are in context.

I do think that instead of 'breach of due process', if no charges are laid, or even if he is found not guilty, that he should be entitled to compensation, but only lost income and legal expenses.

Come on Midge, its not like you to quote out of context :wink: . That statement about a one way ticket is combined with all the rest of what would have been going on and is only the final part that pushed the investigation into using these laws.

:D :D :D
It's the one-way ticket that originally got me. I've always been convinced that was a press beat-up. Any non-citizen would only have a one-way ticket out of here if they arrived on a return ticket. This of course brings me to my thoughts:

I felt right up until the time that he was released, that there was more. I don't believe the press, they don't report the truth, particularly when it's inconvenient. It was conceivable that the AFP had some stuff on this bloke that they weren't prepared to risk becoming public knowledge, and therefore the visa thing seemed fair to me.

any suggestions?
Yep.

The system seems to be working. They had their eye on this bloke. What's not working is the corrupt press. That's where the presumption of innocence fails. The press decide a person's guilt whether that be terrorist or "bungling" police officer.

There should be a complete prohibition on reporting anything at all until after the result of the trial, when the "facts" won't impact on the world. There seems to be this holier than thou approach, that we have a right to be informed... well we do, after the event. In the meantime we have a right to be protected, and to the truth. The truth will never get to us while these dimwits continue to press for unrelated snippets of information.

I'll wager now it wasn't the sim card that got the bloke arrested.

Too many people in this country have their reputations ruined before they are found to be not guilty!

Cheers,

P
:D

dazzler

29th July 2007, 06:51 PM

The system seems to be working. They had their eye on this bloke. What's not working is the corrupt press. That's where the presumption of innocence fails. The press decide a person's guilt whether that be terrorist or "bungling" police officer.

There should be a complete prohibition on reporting anything at all until after the result of the trial, when the "facts" won't impact on the world. There seems to be this holier than thou approach, that we have a right to be informed... well we do, after the event. In the meantime we have a right to be protected, and to the truth. The truth will never get to us while these dimwits continue to press for unrelated snippets of information.

I'll wager now it wasn't the sim card that got the bloke arrested.

Too many people in this country have their reputations ruined before they are found to be not guilty!

Cheers,

P
:D

Hey Pete I agree with all that. The press play both sides. Firstly its the bad man terrorist and once that has run its the bad bad police and the bad bad govt :rolleyes:

The media should only be allowed to report that a person has been taken into custody for something and thats it. In this case no one would have known who he was and his character would not have been assassinated.

cheers

bitingmidge

29th July 2007, 08:29 PM

And now we have a bloke who's been incarcerated for a few weeks, found to have no case against him, had his right to work taken from him, so decides to on his release from detention to continue on his trip to visit his newborn child that he has not yet seen. (Of course he picks up a cheque for $150k from channel 9 in Singapore on the way through - how's that for integrity of the press!)

The minister for immigration says there's something suspicious about the way he left so soon.

Presumption of innocence?

P
:rolleyes:

Metal Head

29th July 2007, 11:20 PM

Hey MH

Do you let him leave?. What if he was part of a cell here? Are there other members ready to attack here? Has he left a device (car bomb?) here that is ready to go?.

Of course you would have to interview him (as they did) if he was suspected of being part of a terrorist cell:rolleyes:. However, it became obviously apparent to us anti-Howard supporters that this was a botched job as time went by. Like the main evidence against him was it was supposedly his sim card that would be used to detinate the bomb. But it wasn't and they (the investigators) knew of that early in the peace but of course they didn't want to look stupid in their case so they spent time tying to discredit the poor guy. Do you remember that one of the ivestigators wrote details on some paper but tried to hang it on the poor doctor:((.

Hard questions. How would you deal with it. (MH leaves it to others but whines on the way :rolleyes:). Poor old Dazzler (who comes across as being a racist) is disappointed that his beloved Howard will be on his way after the next election. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pass the poison chalice over to Costello as soon as it gets through his thick head that it will lose in a landslide. Remember Dazzler as a citizen of this country I have equall as yours. You were just fortunate to have been born here.

Let him go and hope nothing happens. Let india deal with it?. Please show the text where I said he "should not have been interviewed".

Or do you use the new laws to detain him while you sort it out? I would choose the latter. Maybe you would take the risk and just throw your hands up if it goes pair shaped.:(

Yes the ombudsman should review the case, but thats not what we are talking about are we:rolleyes: .

Also, cast your mind back to when it first started to come out in the media and they were interviewing an associate of the dr and how the commissioner of the AFP was so adamant that he was innocent and was of no concern and was helping police etc... Hardly supports the theories that they were out to get anyone.

Glen

29th July 2007, 11:35 PM

Just a thought ( don't know if the doc is innocent or not) but if leaving your simcard with a cousin is recklessly giving aid to terrorist, what is giving $300 million (AWB Scandal) Oh well I guess I didn't know is a legitimate excuse for pollies.

craigb

30th July 2007, 12:25 AM

Well it wasn't "the press" who cancelled his visa, it was the Australian Minister for Immigration. However, we (you know, the people from whom his power derives) aren't allowed to know on what grounds he made this decision.

What a terrific system.

Sebastiaan56

30th July 2007, 09:24 AM

Notice that the polls show a slight move back to the government, seems like they've got their "Children Overboard" for 2007

Sebastiaan

Sturdee

30th July 2007, 10:08 AM

it was the Australian Minister for Immigration.

Who unfortunately is my local member.:(( :(( :(( :(( :

Ever since that person, acting on his religious beliefs, convinced the government to interfere and overturn NT legislation on euthenasia I have regretted to be in his electorate and voted against him.

Not surprising that he acted this way, same way as he acted against the interests of all Australians in forcing upon us the Workchoice legislation.

Peter.

dazzler

30th July 2007, 10:45 AM

Hey

Watched the paid interview on 60 minutes last night and thought he came across as credible and believable.

Only two issues that were a little "off" was when he was asked if he had ever supported terrorism or terrorist acts and there was a pause and a long winded answer. Would have expected an outright "no" similar to the initial answer of "are you a terrorist" at the opening.

Also the answers to the money transfers were vague.

Outside of those I think he is no terrorist nor had terrorist leanings.

If there is a link, I would put my money on a link between him and one of the radical mosques or clerics/leaders when he lived in the UK. Not that he was involved in anything other than being there at some stage.

Maybe Andrews will release the intel today. Lets see if dazzlers on the money. :D -------------:-

Bleedin Thumb

30th July 2007, 11:19 AM

There should be a complete prohibition on reporting anything at all until after the result of the trial, when the "facts" won't impact on the world. There seems to be this holier than thou approach, that we have a right to be informed... well we do, after the event. In the meantime we have a right to be protected, and to the truth. The truth will never get to us while these dimwits continue to press for unrelated snippets of information.

I am not a fan of the Australian press but for all their faults I would sooner have them reporting what is happening no matter how one eyed than to have no reportage at all.

This is a democracy not a totalatarian state yet.

If we didn't have the press sticking their noses into this affair do you think he would of been release yet?
How is the public suppost to make judments about the effectiveness or integrity of their government without the press keeping them informed?

We do have a big problem with our press, two of which are (IMO)

1. Editorial style - everything has to be a big scandle or sensationalised.
2. Lack of independence - We have a system where the fortunes of a media outlet is dependant on the government giving them license's and changes of legislation regarding ownership rules - They're not exactly going to bite the hand that feeds them are they?

But to muzzle them... No way!:no:

silentC

30th July 2007, 11:41 AM

Trouble is, the media interferes with the legal process. How many times have you heard "my client will have trouble getting a fair trial in light of the attention his case has been given". It must be virtually impossible in some cases to find jurors who have not read about the case in the papers or heard about it on TV. I tend to agree that it would be better that nothing was reported until a case goes to trial. After that, it doesn't matter. If it doesn't go to trial, then we can hear all about it.

But, yes, the problem with that idea is that the press have also been instrumental in bringing our collective attention to situations that should be rectifed.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Glad it's not my decision to make.

Zed

30th July 2007, 12:03 PM

this argument will go on forever. I doubt that at any time will everyone sit down and say; :... Hmmm... good outcome, nice bit of legislature that.."

However i feel what is more important is punishing the CORRECTLY CONVICTED terrorist. Here is what I propose :

Dependant on the religion of the terrorist substitute:

Red Meat on Fridays,
Pork,
Shellfish,
Misc,
OR whatever is banned by the particular flavour of the religious nonsense of choice...Completely drape your convicted in his/her (non)prefered foodstuff.
Empty a magazine of 7.62 into thier chest and head.
Send them to meet thier god in the forbidden foodstuff and collect thier reward.

Dont laugh, im serious. if they all knew this was thier earthly prize/punishment perhaps the religious/noncensical fevour would not be so pronounced....

Gra

30th July 2007, 12:06 PM

has there ever been an atheist terrorist?

silentC

30th July 2007, 12:07 PM

There may have been, but I bet there was never an agnostic terrorist...

Zed

30th July 2007, 12:23 PM

Gra

30th July 2007, 12:30 PM

absolutely there are/were athiest terrorists... think any of the communists inthe past or present (eg african communist terrorists) and political terrorists such as the old german (was it? ) red brigade?? or even the IRA who espouse loathe of the poms rather than cat/prot...

IRA don't count, they are still purporting to be doing it for the church,:roll: even if they are so far from the church it isn't funny .... I don't remember any communist terrorists, they tended to go for using the masses to subvert the govt, not small groups as terrorists do.

Though now I think about it, there may have been a hijacking somewhere, but cant really remember.. anyone??

silentC

30th July 2007, 12:36 PM

Technically, terrorism has nothing to do with religion - it is a political 'strategy' used to attempt to reach some political goal. Religion is used as a justification for it, but I doubt that many terrorist acts have ever really had anything much to do with religion.

Also, by strict definition, the nuclear bombing of Japan was a terrorist act, because it was an attack launched against non-combatants in an effort to use fear to bring about the political aim of ending Japan's involvement in World War II.

Terrorism has become a pejorative term though and most people think of Arabs blowing themselves up with home-made bombs when it is used.

Zed

30th July 2007, 12:37 PM

bitingmidge

30th July 2007, 12:45 PM

If we didn't have the press sticking their noses into this affair do you think he would of been release yet?

Maybe, maybe not. That's one of my issues... what you are saying is that he's effectively been tried in the press! Wrong place to be tried! The public has no right to administer justice in this way!

What we would not have had, would be the AFP leaking the "evidence" so that public opinion would sway heavily against the nasty terrorist (as if that was necessary anyway :rolleyes: ) nor would we have seen the guy's defence leaking the full text of his interrogation. That must have been pretty inane too, because we didn't see anyone crawling over themselves to publsh the contents.

Both were wrong, and we didn't need to know either.

How is the public suppost to make judments about the effectiveness or integrity of their government without the press keeping them informed? I didn't say the press wasn't to keep they informed.

The press must do so, AFTER the event. Once that has happened they have the right to make truly in-depth analysis, and it won't have an impact on the outcome, but it will certainly show any chinks in government integrity.

One of the reason the press don't do that now, is they can use stuff completely out of context to pre-empt, or even influence a decision!

Think about it!

Cheers,

P

bitingmidge

30th July 2007, 12:49 PM

Though now I think about it, there may have been a hijacking somewhere, but cant really remember.. anyone??

well there was that bloke going to Tasmania who used a pencil to hold up the plane....

P
:rolleyes:

Gra

30th July 2007, 12:52 PM

Im pretty sure in germany in the 70's was a group of terrorists who were commies.. reg flag, red hand, red banner or some such thing.. I think they had associations with the jackal...

what about drug cartels ? do they qualify as terrorists?

I cede to the ape, it was the Red Army faction, and they only got one of the in the last couple of years, they blew up one or two buildings and killed a number of business people

There was also the red brigade in Italy, that was funded by the Chec Stb, at about the same time...

As for drug cartels, they are more business/Criminal organizations than terrorist

Bleedin Thumb

30th July 2007, 12:54 PM

There may have been, but I bet there was never an agnostic terrorist...

Timothy McVeigh apparently...... damn another theory bites the dust:)

silentC

30th July 2007, 12:54 PM

What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.

:p

Gra

30th July 2007, 01:00 PM

What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.

:p

Well there is arguments for and against that definition, I believe the difference was it was a declared war, most terrorist organizations are not "officially" at war with the other side.. But it is a minor difference... I could be wrong there though (Usually are)

silentC

30th July 2007, 01:00 PM

Timothy McVeigh apparently...... damn another theory bites the dust:)

In a recorded interview with Time Magazine he professed his belief in "a God", though he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "never really picked it [back] up." The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic, though his execution included a Roman Catholic ceremony.

See - he became an agnostic, but I bet he wasn't one when he blew that building up :)

Gra

30th July 2007, 01:03 PM

Timothy McVeigh apparently...... damn another theory bites the dust:)

Yeah he was a southern Christian redneck wasn't he

Bleedin Thumb

30th July 2007, 01:03 PM

it isn't funny .... I don't remember any communist terrorists,

Pol Pot.... infact I would have to say that most Communist insurgents/freedom fighters/liberationalist would all have a pretty bad track record.

Mate they wrote the book.

Gra

30th July 2007, 01:04 PM

Pol Pot.... infact I would have to say that most Communist insurgents/freedom fighters/liberationalist would all have a pretty bad track record.

Mate they wrote the book.

I thought he was the government not a terrorist?

silentC

30th July 2007, 01:06 PM

That is a special type of terrorism known as State terrorism.

pedro the swift

30th July 2007, 01:10 PM

Bleedin Thumb

30th July 2007, 01:14 PM

See - he became an agnostic, but I bet he wasn't one when he blew that building up :)

Mate I could let the Hiroshima remark get by, but I'm afraid you're clutching at straws this time :D Those Catholic priests are like flies around a camp stew come execution time...doesn't mean diddly.

Zed

30th July 2007, 01:22 PM

so back to my first comment on this thread... valid? Discuss! :D

silentC

30th July 2007, 01:26 PM

If the bombing of Hiroshima etc was a "terrorist act" I guess you would class the murder,rape, decapitation,vivisection,medical experimentation and other assorted niceties committed by the Japanese against Chinese civilians as acts of kindness.
Why? What an odd thing to say.

Here is the definition of a terrorist act in summary:

1. It involves violence
2. It is intended to have a Psychological impact
3. It is perpetrated for a political goal
4. It deliberately targets non-combatants

There is a 5th which is added in legislation to differentiate between what they are trying to target, and acts of war like bombing of civilian areas: the act is unlawful or not carried out by a legitimate government.

However, the term originates from the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution and the perpetrators were very much legitimate government agents.

Some people believe the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings were war crimes. I'm not arguing that, but acts of terror, most definitely by strict definition. Not making any comment on whether or not they were warranted. I kind of think that blowing up hundreds of thousands of ordinary people is a bad thing and to be avoided. I know that the chief argument is that it brought the war to an early end, and therefore probably saved lives. Tough one.

But this is not my point. I am just trying to point out that terrorism has nothing to do with religion and has been used as a serious political strategy in the past.

silentC

30th July 2007, 01:27 PM

Mate I could let the Hiroshima remark get by, but I'm afraid you're clutching at straws this time :D Those Catholic priests are like flies around a camp stew come execution time...doesn't mean diddly.
I'm talking about his 'professed belief in "a God"'. You can't be agnostic and have one of those. :)

bitingmidge

30th July 2007, 01:37 PM

What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.

I gong to argue! :D

Hiroshima was a city in Japan. It still is according to my atlas, albeit apparently completely re-built after an act of terrorism mid last century.

How do those Airforce planes get through airport security anway?? :?

Cheers,

P
:D

silentC

30th July 2007, 01:39 PM

And BM passes his Ethics in warfare exam on a technicality...

:p

Bleedin Thumb

30th July 2007, 01:43 PM

I'm not a theologian but I thought that an agnostic could believe in god its just that they acknowledge that it is impossible to comprehend its existence and hence don't bother trying ?

dazzler

30th July 2007, 01:44 PM

Gingermick

30th July 2007, 01:45 PM

I agree silent, Hiroshima was the largest terrorist act ever committed.
I also think that Israel uses terrorism tactics in its push to get more land promised by god.

silentC

30th July 2007, 01:48 PM

an agnostic could believe in god its just that they acknowledge that it is impossible to comprehend its existence and hence don't bother trying
No, an agnostic accepts that you can never know whether or not there is a god. It is impossible for an agnostic to have an absolute belief in God - if he does, he is not an agnostic. Some agnostics might believe that there could be a god, in other words, they don't rule it out. There is an important difference.

An atheist on the other hand believes that there is no god, or that there was one but he is dead. This is an absolute belief that an agnostic cannot hold.

Gra

30th July 2007, 01:54 PM

No, an agnostic accepts that you can never know whether or not there is a god. It is impossible for an agnostic to have an absolute belief in God - if he does, he is not an agnostic. Some agnostics might believe that there could be a god, in other words, they don't rule it out. There is an important difference.

An atheist on the other hand believes that there is no god, or that there was one but he is dead. This is an absolute belief that an agnostic cannot hold.

As opposed to a gnostic, that is a completely different god botherer:U:U:U

silentC

30th July 2007, 02:29 PM

Then there are gnoles - and whatever you do, don't sell rope to them....

boban

30th July 2007, 02:30 PM

I watched part of that interview with Haneef. It was the most pathetic interviewing style I have seen in a while. As much as I disliked the attitude of the late Richard Carlton, he makes that interviewer look like schoolgirl.

She simply accepted everything and moved on to the next question. Are you are terrorist. No. OK. (not quoted)

And as to your solution Zed. The fact that the punishment is handed out by a "non believer" would make them a martyr and heighten their "hero" status.

Was it just me, or was the "one way ticket" line of questioning simply an ask and accept style of questioning? I still want to know why he had a one way ticket going to see his family shortly after the bombing, knowing that his family was involved.

Given that I didn't want to watch the rest of the interview, did he at any stage condemn his cousin.

I've got no problem with the way he was treated and I can tell you I have no sympathy for this government. His detention only differs from others in that he can be held without charge for a little longer than others. Big deal. It's not the G Bay type of detention.

As to his visa, well I see it as a privilege not an entitlement. If there is any doubt about him or even his family, why on earth should we be taking the risk.

Too me, the system has worked very well thus far. We are not dealing with people who play by the rules (which does not mean our government shouldn't) so the rules/laws need to evolve with the situation with which we are now faced. That my friends is a fact of life.

As an analogy, there was no need to legislate against spam at one point in time.

BTW- I have no view on whether Haneef is a terrorist or not. I don't know as I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Nor does anybody else posting their opinion.

Gra

30th July 2007, 02:33 PM

Then there are gnoles - and whatever you do, don't sell rope to them....

Had to Wiki that one:?

Sebastiaan56

30th July 2007, 02:43 PM

What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.:p

Hi C

My birth date is the 6th August and yes, every year I remember the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. There was recently some work done on the recollections of the victims and makes for horrible and compelling viewing. http://search.bbc.co.uk/cgi-bin/search/results.pl?tab=av&q=hiroshima&recipe=all&start=2&scope=all

Was it a terrorist act to drop a bomb on a city and kill 140,000 people? Was it a terrorist act to send the tanks into Tiannamen Square or massacre the men and boys of Srebeniza? Yes. Was it a terrorist act to storm Normandy or Gallipoli? Was it a terrorist act to send subs into Pearl Harbour and bomb the US fleet. No.

When soldiers fight soldiers its war, reprehensible, low down mean dirty old war. When civilian populations are randomly targetted its terrorism. I could get pedantic and claim that a lot of communication is terrorising civilian populations, eg tax department warnings, but that devalues the impact of the word.

But here is the rub, its a word that describes an emotion. It has been co-opted in the cause of political control. To create a war on an emotion!! wallys,

ps God told the shrub to invade Iraq. Poor god, she gets blamed for so much....

Sebastiaan