Tuesday, October 02, 2007

Md. Haneef again

Nothing in the Four Corners show last night caused me to change my view that Mohammed Haneef was the subject of an entirely reasonable investigation by Australian authorities earlier this year. Liz Jackson carried out a superb, probing interview for the show.

To be clear Mr. Haneef on appearence seems a decent young man who got caught up in a Kafkaesque nightmare. But his stated reasons for leaving Australia, his close association with two known terrorists and his statements during internet chat room sessions make him a plausible suspect.

I also thought the Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews handled the issue with propriety and implemented the Immigration Act correctly.

13 comments:

Bring Back CL's blog said...

I am sorry Harry then you are a complete idiot.
The Feds did not even have a decent translation and still went ahead.
They end up looking like keystone cops.

to think the genesis of this is that he gave a cousin a sim card which was then replenished.

if he was soooo bad why didn'r he even try to hise his footsteps.

Doesn't it even bother you that our esteemed minister has been shoed to be lying through his teeth when YOU accepted his assertion from a limited telephone conversation

hc said...

When you learn to spell Homer I'll respond to your abuse.

Bring Back CL's blog said...

it would be far better if you could actually introduce somwe evidence to back up your absurd claim.

If this is the best the Feds can do when there is no terrorism threat what will hasppen when there is a genuine one?

derrida derider said...

Harry, I'm firmly on Homer's side on this. As every observer but you can see every single piece of "evidence" we have been vouchsafed turned out on even a cursory sniff to be pure ovine excrement. Which leads to the strong presumption that the "evidence" we haven't been vouchsafed (and which therefore hasn't been sniffed at all) is at least equally odoriferous.

The intial behaviour of the AFP and even of Andrews' office was merely overzealous. Given the bum steer they got from the reliably unreliable Brits you might just possibly forgive this.

But it's their behaviour since that really worries me. They are clearly willing to wreck an innocent life in order to avoid admitting they were wrong (after all, he's just a foreigner). Haneef now can't just get into Oz - he can't get into the US or UK either, which as an English-speaking doctor rather limits his career opportunities.

As just one example, you can't account for Andrews' leaking of grossly misleading interview excerpts except on the assumption of his acting in bad faith. These out-of-context, badly mistranslated excerpts would have been allowed to stand if the defence lawyer hadn't (rightly, IMO) breached the promises he made to the AFP not to release the full transcript.

And Homer's right too about the implications of the authorities' incompetence if we ever do face a real threat. It's a matter of national security to get rid of these bozos.

Anonymous said...

I agree with DD -- Kevin Andrews should be fired for rank political corruption. The only up side to all this is that the some of the assholes that vote for him and others of the authoritarian Christian right are living in areas likely not have doctors in them anymore. Hopefully we'll see Darwin in action whem they find out praying doesn't cure them.

conrad said...

I agree with DD -- Kevin Andrews should be fired for rank political corruption. The only up side to all this is that the some of the assholes that vote for him and others of the authoritarian Christian right are living in areas likely not have doctors in them anymore. Hopefully we'll see Darwin in action whem they find out praying doesn't cure them.

hc said...

Jeez Conrad you are normally such a mild-mannered bloke! You can't criticise Andrews implementation of the Immigration Act because he is a Christian. Where has he gone wrong?

via collins said...

Andrews is unseemingly nervous when under pressure. He communicates very badly.

At least Ruddock and Downer seem to have strength to their conviction when orating, Andrews is just awful. Wouldn't want him on my side in a crisis.

And as Homer and DD point out, we better not have that crisis with KA on deck.

Francis Xavier Holden said...

harry - you haven't taken up writing scripts for the Chaser have you?

conrad said...

It must mid-semester :) I don't criticize him because he is Christian -- just the group that he represents that votes for him.

Obviously hiding evidence from the public, like that he had told his work when he was leaving, his wife was giving birth, he had bought the ticket before the incident etc. is deliberate smearing. If this information was released at the time, people would have had a completely different perspective of the situation (there's a reason he was never found guilty). Only the Chinese government and others with that sort of mentality could be proud of that.

Steve said...

I agree Harry. I reckon that, even allowing for cultural difficulties in understanding Haneef's body language, he looked and sounded the most evasive when he was seemingly claimed that he just never knew his cousin was so serious/radical about his religion.

And everyone criticising Andrews is doing it without benefit of knowledge of the other evidence.

shlomo said...

Great that Haneef is in the news again so you can say inflammatory things and get attention.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, Harry Clarke. People who can never be wrong despite it being blindingly obvious to everyone else.

Give the Haneef thing a rest, Harry. This is a publicly viewed blog and you look like a worse idiot every time you beat this old horse. Don't you ever get embarrassed? Or perhaps tired of Muslim-bashing?

Shlomo said...

****News flash of the obvious: Harry Clark Gets it Wrong on Haneef Too**** See Below:

*****************************
Sydney Morning Herald
We got it wrong on Haneef: DPP chief

David Marr
October 13, 2007

MOHAMED HANEEF should never have been charged, the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions, Damian Bugg, QC, admitted last night when releasing details of a report into the role his office played in the case.

The review, conducted by an unnamed private barrister, concluded the DPP's office had not properly appreciated the evidence against Dr Haneef and had not given appropriate advice before he was charged.