Presumption Of Innocence

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Article99

...
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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

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

---

any suggestions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Hi MH

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

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

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by echnidna

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

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

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

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.

---

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.

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.