Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » Fly away Home

Fly away Home

Mohamed Haneef arrives at Brisbane Airport to board a Thai Airways flight to India. Pic: Reuters
Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews yesterday gave the go-ahead for Dr Haneef to return to India but refused to reinstate his visa.Dr Haneef has vowed to continue to fight to have his visa reinstated in the hope he may one day even return to live and work in Australia, his lawyer says.

Peter Russo said Dr Haneef was “fairly happy” with the outcome and would push ahead with a Federal Court appeal against the cancellation of his work visa, with a hearing due in Brisbane on August 8.

Smiling and giving a thumbs up sign, Dr Haneef was ushered into Brisbane international airport by immigration officials but did not speak to the media.

Accompanied by his relative Imran Siddiqui, Dr Haneef was booked on a Thai Airways flight to Bangalore via Bangkok.

Mr Russo said Dr Haneef was not being deported and was leaving Australia voluntarily as he was homesick and pining for his family in Bangalore.

“He’s fairly happy, he had a choice of either staying until the (visa appeal) hearing has concluded or go back to his wife and child on a voluntary basis – he chose to go back voluntarily,” Mr Russo told reporters at Brisbane airport as he waited to fly out with Dr Haneef.

(the Australian)

Although the likes of that serial whiner Bob Brown will see the Haneef case as an example of the evil of our anti-Terror legislation, I personally see that the events that we have witnessed over the last few weeks show that opposing Jihadist terror is never going to be easy. So much of such cases can turn upon the proper handling of what may be very small pieces of evidence, which must be perfectly documented and perfectly annotated in any court process. When mistakes are made a case will inevitable be weakened. Certainly in the Haneef case this was the reason that the Prosecution collapsed.

The Law is however a beast that learns from such mistakes and we can only hope that in future if it is decided to prosecute some one for terrorism associations that the case is more substantial and more accurately presented. As for the Good doctor himself, assuming he is not involved in any sort of Jihadist plot, I hope that he realises that the powers that be in this country have to take very seriously indeed his clear relationships with not one but two of the terrorists caught after the latest attempts to cause death an destruction in the UK.

Advertisements

23 Comments

  1. Madd McColl says:

    ‘When mistakes are made a case will inevitable be weakened.’
    Yes but in this case the actual mistakes were the only things that made a charge seem even remotely plausible. Once the mistakes were revealed and the truth came out it was clear that the case was exceptionally weak. Had it not been for the mistakes he surely would have been released long ago.
    ‘I hope that he realises that the powers that be in this country have to take very seriously indeed his clear relationships with not one but two of the terrorists caught after the latest attempts to cause death an destruction in the UK.’
    If he didn’t, you can bet he does now.

  2. PKD says:

    Iain,
    Your flailing around on this is pitiful.

    Given your often stated position that terror suspects / enemy combatants should be held indefinitely without trial it is time for you to admit that you would have had this poor guy locked up without trial were it up to you.

    Further your innuendo that you think he may be guilty of something becuase of his family is the worst kind of presumption of guilt before innocence.

    Both positions have shown your ignorance when it comes to dealing with extermists – yours is a ‘fight extremeism WITH extermeism’ philosiphy that is incompatible with a free democracy.

    PKD
    .

  3. Iain says:

    PKD
    my position on the treatment of combatants captured on the field of battle has been clearly enunciated many times and I do not retreat from that position. However to claim that I hold the same position vis-à-vis individuals charged in a civilian jurisdiction (as in the Haneef case) is to grossly misrepresent my views on the matter.

    I have tried to be very measured in my comments on this matter but I am hardly surprised by the gloating tone in this latest comment, and I note that you are very good at nay saying but very “light on” when it comes to viable alternative to proactive policing that may not always achieve successful prosecutions.

  4. Mark L. says:

    “…we can only hope that in future if it is decided to prosecute some one for terrorism associations that the case is more substantial…”

    Good to see you acknowledge that there was very little of a case against him in the first place.

  5. PKD says:

    However to claim that I hold the same position vis-à-vis individuals charged in a civilian jurisdiction (as in the Haneef case) is to grossly misrepresent my views on the matter.

    Oh, so now it matters whether a suspected terrorist is detained by a civil force like the police as opposed to a military force? Absolute madness!

    Tell us Iain – why should a suspected Al-Qaeda terrorist detained by a policeman get a trial but should be denied this and held indefinitely if he is caught by a military person?

  6. Iain says:

    Mark I am not as one eyed about such things as many want to believe 😉
    PKD
    can you try a different tune ?
    It has always matter just where some one is aaprehended and by whom when it comes to such things. Sheesh anyone would think that we have just one global juisdiction and just one agency to deal with such things 🙄

  7. PKD says:

    Aaaah, so it doesn’t really matter what terrorist activity a person may be suspected of, just where he is caught and who by that determines how they should be processed. Gee, that makes sense! 😦

    Truly Iain you are a genius beyond compare!

    Rgrds,
    PKD
    .

  8. Jangari says:

    Certainly in the Haneef case this was the reason that the Prosecution collapsed.

    I disagree. The reason the prosecution collapsed was that there was no case to begin with. The fact that he is distantly related to one of the attackers and gave him a sim card – which was only evidential under the false premise that it was found at the scene – is no basis to charge someone with something as undefinable as (material support for) terrorism.

    He did absolutely nothing wrong except to look different to white Australians and speak with a Hinglsh accent, and that’s why the prosecution collapsed.

    That said, it’s not the fault of Keelty, or of the AFP as they only enforce the stupid and draconian laws. It’s the fault of the immigration minister, the attorney general and the prime minister.

    As for Andrews’ suspicion of Haneef’s quickly leaving the county – his wife gave birth while he was in custody, where do you think he’d go?

  9. Iain says:

    PKD
    Do you realise just how stupid your position is here? You steal say a toaster from a shop here in Brisbane and under our criminal code you may receive one sanction but steal exactly the same toaster in another state and you will receive a different sanction steal the same Item from a store in Tehran and they may well cut off your hand, same crime , different jurisdictions and different outcomes.
    Crimes that we classify as acts of terror are no different. 🙄
    Jangari
    The reality is that neither you no I are privy to all of the facts of the Haneef case and I am actually keen to hear the details of the evidence that was presented by the AFP before I make any kind of definitive judgement on the actions of Kevin Andrews in cancelling the visa. As I see it there is no right for non-citizens to enter this country as and when they please. Entry is rightly to be predicated on the notion that people coming here should only be of the best character and frankly I want any immigration minister to always err on the side of caution.
    I will concede that Haneef does present far better in the photo’s than in the court reporters sketches, with an affable persona and a ready smile but I am also reminded of the very ready smile of a certain the self admitted Bali bomber…

  10. Elijah says:

    Be careful of the wolf in the skin of a sheep.

  11. Iain says:

    exactly right Elijah

  12. Mark L. says:

    We know why Haneef’s visa cancellation was maintained: because reinstating it would put him into public circulation, where the media would quickly snaffle him up and both the government and the AFP would come under increased scrutiny. The government is now in shutdown mode about this whole business, to avoid embarrasment for its politicisation of a criminal investigation. Meanwhile Iain, despite admitting that the case against Haneef was insubstantial, implies that he might’ve been guilty because he looked too nice. Sheesh.

  13. Iain says:

    How exactly do you know that your claims are correct Mark???
    🙄

  14. Mark L. says:

    Because on face value that’s what seems to be happening. And the government has produced no evidence to convince me otherwise. Unlike you I don’t swallow the oh-well-there-must-be-more-to-this-than-meets-the-eye line; government is meant to be open, honest and accountable, even when it comes to national security.

    In any case, Iain, you make plenty of unsubstantiated claims yourself, e.g. thousands of blood-thirsty Jihadists at the door. Right before you duck out of the thread, never to return.

  15. Mark L. says:

    “happens” = happening (no bloody preview facility)

  16. Iain says:

    Error fixed Mark 🙂
    That is precisely the point I am trying to make, mate you can no more sure of the basis for your assertion that I can be of mine. So there is no reason that my suspicion that there could very well be something more sinister behind the smiling façade of the good doctor is just as good as your claim to the contrary, which I why I am so interested to hear what the AFP told the minister…

  17. PKD says:

    Iain,
    The fact that different countires process the same crime differently is irrelevant to the point that you should only support one method of processing or sentencing a person for a given crime. For example I would comdemn the example you gave of chopping someones hands of for theft as inproprotionate punishment to the crime.

    Conceptually, you should not support a dual process for dealing someone – even you adhere to that principle when you advocate your preference for the death penalty for convicted terrorists.

    Likewise you should only support one method of processing such people, either a trial or indefinite detention. Which is it?

  18. Mark L. says:

    So there is no reason that my suspicion that there could very well be something more sinister behind the smiling façade of the good doctor is just as good as your claim to the contrary…

    There’s a damn good reason – it’s called the presumption of innocence. And unless they produce a smoking gun that shows Haneef rode into town on a camel strapped with gelignite, I’m not too interested in what the AFP have to say tomorrow. My guess is that’ll be self-serving and critical of the media. But time will tell.

    PS. Thanks for fixing the error.

  19. Iain says:

    Conceptually, you should not support a dual process for dealing someone – even you adhere to that principle when you advocate your preference for the death penalty for convicted terrorists.

    Likewise you should only support one method of processing such people, either a trial or indefinite detention. Which is it?

    PKD
    Have you been on the grog or something worse?
    Firstly my responses to you were meant to express an understanding that no one group or agency has universal sway over the entire planet in matters pertaining to law and justice, so the reality is that the same crime will inevitably be treated differently depending on where the crime occurs. But I could just as easily suggested that the different judges may well give very different sentences to the same toaster thief with in one jurisdiction. Clearly you don’t understand that different legal systems have different geographical area over which they can enforce their laws.
    I’ll put it in the form of a metaphor OK?
    I like to have eggs for breakfast, sometimes I like them boiled, with toast, some times I like them fried with some bacon, other times scrambled is delightful, but what ever way they are cooked the result is the same; after breakfast time there are two less eggs in the fridge.

    Mark
    Presumption of innocence is a concept that pertains to someone before the courts, Haneef is no longer in that situation and like any pundit I am entitled to offer my own speculations. Now it clearly suits your own political agenda to envision the man as a paragon of virtue who is as pure as the driven snow. I was trying to make the point that you can only assume that. An interesting piece on A current affair last night by a couple of Experts on analysing the body language of the good doctor while he was being interviewed on “sixty minutes” there were several instances when he was asked the crucial questions when his reactions were entirely consistent with some one who was being deceptive in his answers. I know that this is not conclusive but it does show that the unreserved acceptance of his “innocence” by the likes of you is probably more to do with your position on the anti Terror laws than it is to do with the virtue (or not) of the man in question.

  20. Mark L. says:

    Now it clearly suits your own political agenda to envision the man as a paragon of virtue who is as pure as the driven snow.

    Iain, you’re doing what you always do when flailing around on the losing end of an argument: building straw-men and painting it as a left-right political issue when it’s not. I never said Haneef was a “paragon of virtue”, just that he is entitled to the presumption of innocence. Your problem is that you desperately want him to be guilty because it validates your own world-view. And citing body language ‘experts’ on tabloid TV shows (it was “A Current Affair”, by the way, not “Sixty Minutes”) well, that’s just pathetic.

  21. Iain says:

    Mark
    this is what I said

    An interesting piece on A current affair last night by a couple of Experts on analysing the body language of the good doctor while he was being interviewed on “sixty minutes”

    Sure it was tabloid television and I don’t put a great deal of trust in any thing of that ilk.

    If it turns out that he is in fact an innocent man who had no knowledge of what his relatives were up to then there has really been no real loss to him personally, as he has a new job and has been paid a handsome sum for playing the media tart for a very short time. In the end as much as I want to believe that he may be an innocent man I also want to see our government fulfil its primary duty of care for the Australian community.
    Terrorists are by their very nature secretive and duplicitous and if the law enforcement people are too blasé about possible threats and an individual or group managed to set of a big bomb I bet then that you would be among the chorus calling for the head of the police or the minister for letting it happen. The reality is that the police had some very strong reasons to treat this chap with suspicion. However if his behaviour had not set off alarm bells for the AFP the story could have been very different,

  22. PKD says:

    Have you been on the grog or something worse?

    Worse – is called this site! It rots your ability to reason! 😉

    It’s really quite simple, while acknowledging different places deal with the same crime differently, a person should favour one form of processing and punishment over the other. E.g you support the death penalty as a punishment for murder or you don’t.

    It is simply two-faced for you to say ‘I support leaving terror suspects in indefinite detention without trial’ and the next day saying ‘I am happy for them to be tried’. Its an illogical double standard.

    Yet this is what you do time and again by supporting the meme that its ok for terror suspect to be locked up under Geneva Conventions as POWs etc, and then saying you support them to be processed through a civil process like Haneef by the police – likewise as a terror suspect.

    You can’t have it BOTH ways. How hard is this simple question for you Iain? Which method of processing do you support – indefinite detention or trial for civil courts?

  23. Iain says:

    PKD
    My desire is that the threat of Jihadist terror should be neutralised and this will require a multi faceted approach. Frankly I don’t care if there are a very large number of different processes, on a global scale, to achieve this, that was what I was trying to explain to you with my eggs for breakfast metaphor. The aim is to empty the carton of eggs not to impose a strict requirement that eggs should only ever be prepared in one style. Is THAT too hard for you to understand?

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: