Haneef: A Plausible Explanation

Here is a plausible explanation of the circumstantial evidence presented by Kevin Andrews today. To recap the latest "evidence":

[Kevin Andrews] says in the conversation, Dr Haneef's brother says, "nothing has been found out about you", "have you got permission to leave work?" and "tell them you have a newborn daughter".

Mr Andrews also says, in the conversation, which took place the day before Dr Haneef tried to leave Australia, the doctor's brother asks, "when are you getting out?" To which Dr Haneef replied, "today."

And furthermore:

"He did not apply for leave from the hospital when he went to work at the hospital on the Monday morning and it was not until after he received two telephone calls - one from India - having been told in both calls that there was an issue about his SIM card, that he applied for leave that afternoon from the hospital," he said.

Now let's travel back in time to Bangalore, India. Haneef's family have been contacted by British and/or Indian police after his cousin's failed car-bombing in London. Somehow they learn that there are questions about Dr Haneef's SIM card. What do they do? Of course, they contact Haneef and ask him about it. Haneef says he is innocent, but of course he is still shocked by his cousins' actions and now he is also alarmed at the thought that he might be implicated. He starts to panic.

"Don't worry," says his brother, "nothing has been found out about you."
"What should I do?" asks Haneef.
"Just come home to India for a while. Wait till things cool down."
"But what about my job?"
"Hmmn.. Have you got permission to leave work? Can you take a vacation?"
"I can get permission, but what will I tell them? It will look strange if I suddenly disappear."
"Tell them you have a newborn daughter, man! Mum says you should be coming to see her, you know."
"I know. I'm just trying to do the best thing for her future, you know? This job is important to me."
"Yeah, I know..."

They talk for a while. Haneef decides his brother is right.

"You know." he says, "this Aussie government is fucking crazy about terrorism. If I don't get out of here, they are going to arrest me for sure. Did you see what happened to that David Hicks guy."
"Take it easy, Mohammed."
"No, you are right. I've gotta get out of this country before they arrest me."
"Good. So when are you getting out?"
"Today, if I can."

A short while later, Haneef gets another call from a concerned friend or relative who has heard about the SIM card connection. He hurriedly books some vacation time. He tries to organise a flight home that day, but he can't get a flight till the following day. He talks to his brother again.

"So what did you tell the hospital?"
"I said I wanted to see my daughter."
"Nothing else?"
"No, nothing else. You think I want to mess up this job if I don't have to?"
"Of course not. Just get your ass home as quick as you can."

There are some more details in this Indian report which don't make much sense to me:

"The brother then said not to delay his departure and not to let anyone else use his number in Australia, nor to give it to anyone.

"The brother added that 'auntie' told him that brother Kafeel used it in some sort of protest over there," Andrews said, in a reference to UK bombing accused Kafeel Ahmed.

I would have thought that the timeframe involved meant that Haneef already knew about the London bombing and his cousin's involvement. And if he already gave his SIM card to Kafeel, why would he still be giving the number out in Australia? But anyway, "some sort of protest" hardly sounds like they knew what was going down, does it?

Obviously, I know fuck all about this case, and I'm not pretending that the version above is necessarily anything like reality. But if someone like me can so easily come up with an explanation for all this evidence that Kevin Andrews thinks is so damning, maybe it's not so damning at all.

Even if Haneef is guilty, this standard of evidence is not sufficient to convict anyone. Kevin Andrews has got himself in an awful mess.

UPDATE: Dr Haneef's lawyers insisted yesterday that he explained the chatroom conversation when interviewed by federal police.

Imran Siddiqui, a cousin of Dr Haneef's wife, said in Bangalore last night: "This is just another desperate attempt by Kevin Andrews to mislead the people of Australia. Why doesn't he release the second transcript of the second [police] interview with Haneef? In that, we'll see all the questions that were put to Haneef and what he answered about that online conversation with his brother."

Defence lawyers noted that Dr Haneef had tried to get through by phone to British police immediately before leaving Australia to urgently explain why he gave his SIM card to Sabeel Ahmed.

Wanker Of The Day

A minister's resignation is just what John Howard's lacklustre campaign needs right now, isn't it? Today Kevin Bloody Andrews goes into hiding and lets a spokeswoman invoke the old John Howard Defence on his behalf:

"He didn't see the emails. He hasn't seen the emails. Never heard of the police officer (mentioned)," the spokeswoman told AAP today.

She said Mr White could have received the email and failed to hand it on to the minister, but maintained the minister had a healthy relationship with the department.

"Absolutely, a relationship that any minister would have with his department.

"But there would be no reason for the minister to be seeing such (emails) because they are completely unrelated to his actual decision."

Mr Andrews first considered revoking Dr Haneef's visa on Monday July 16 and that was the only time he considered detaining the doctor, she said.

"The visa cancellation was entirely unrelated to the criminal proceedings and the bail hearing.

"I mean the cancellation of the visa is entirely a matter for the minister. It's only something that the minister can decide so there is no way that anyone could have known what the minister would decide."

That last bit is the Condi Rice and George W. Bush defence, BTW.

This is from the email in question:

"Contingencies for containing Mr Haneef and detaining him under the Migration Act, if it was the case he was granted bail on Monday, were in place as per arrangements today," the email said.

Written by Brisbane-based counter-terrorism coordinator David Craig to commanders of the AFP's counter-terrorism unit on Saturday July 14, the email was then forwarded to immigration department public servant Peter White the following Monday.

Two days later, Haneef was granted bail. Kevin Andrews immediately revoked his visa.

Resign.

Now.

You.

Bastard.

UPDATE: Lest we forget:

JOURNALIST: Were doubts raised in the meeting, did anyone…..

PRIME MINISTER: No the meeting I had at the Lodge nobody on my staff mentioned to me, nobody on my staff has ever raised at the relevant times doubts about the photographs no.

JOURNALIST: What do you mean when you say “relevant time”?

PRIME MINISTER: I mean relevant time, I mean before the election and I mean up until right now. I mean I’ve got to be careful that I don’t say nobody’s ever said anything to me about the photographs because unless I fix that in time that might be sort of taken out of context.

JOURNALIST: Can you fix at a date?

PRIME MINISTER: In relation to my staff I don’t think….I mean I probably would have had some discussions with them generally after I decided to commission the inquiry, generally some discussion with them perhaps late in November and they were, I mean to the best of my recollection I’d really have to go back and check and, hang on can I just finish answering Glenn, I’ll go back and check that, otherwise I might give an inaccurate recollection.

UPDATE 2: Crikey's email today asks some good questions:

Firstly, did Mr Prendergast, a senor AFP officer, brief his Commissioner Mick Keelty on the plan to detain Dr Haneef if the bail application was successful?

Secondly, did the DPP’s lawyers know of the plan when they were arguing against bail being granted on Saturday 14 July, and if they did, why didn’t they tell Dr Haneef’s lawyers?

Thirdly, is Mr Andrews’ statement today that he knew nothing of the plan credible given that he is the Minister for Immigration and there would be no point putting a plan to detain Dr Haneef in place without knowing that the Minister, the only one who could approve such a detention, was going to play ball?

Finally, how credible is Mick Keelty’s claim to The Bulletin a fortnight ago that he told the DPP that there wasn’t enough evidence to charge Haneef when his own officers are hatching a plan to use the Migration Act to detain Haneef if he got bail?

Crikey also has this interesting analysis from Jeff Sparrow:

The leaked emails essentially vindicate the position taken in that case by the Australian Greens, at a time when Labor marched arm-in-arm with Kevin Andrews – yet the story appears alongside a poll showing a slump in Green support.
It’s one of the bizarre ironies of this campaign: even as the issues they own become more and more mainstream, Bob Brown’s mob seems to be becoming more marginal.
You’d think the changing political climate over global warming would, in and of itself, propel the Greens into double figures, given that Bob Brown was campaigning about it back when John Howard denied it even existed (oh, hang on – that’s still going on. But, no – as The Age says, the Greens were "polling 8 per cent in early October, but have been on 6 per cent since the campaign began."
The Greens have been vindicated in their opposition to the Iraq war, and their position on WorkChoices reflects the visceral hatred about the IR laws revealed in all the surveys, much more so than Labor’s wishy-washy stance. Yet none of it seems to have done them much good.
Quite simply, people want the Liberals out. And, for most of them, that means a Labor vote. Yes, we all know about preferential voting but, somehow, it doesn’t quite seem real. You want rid of Howard, so you vote for the other bloke. You don’t mess about with 1s and 2s and 3s.
It’s not much consolation for this election but one suspects that, like John Howard in the nineties, Bob Brown will be able to say of the next decade: "The times will suit me."
If the anyone-but-Howard mood leaves little space for a third party, consider the landscape after a Rudd victory. The Liberals will be so preoccupied with fratricidal bloodletting that traditional Toryism will be off the agenda for some time, even as a Blairite Labor Party reveals that economic conservatism coupled with social conservatism equals something pretty damn conservative. In those circumstances, one could easily imagine Brown becoming a focal point for disappointed Rudd voters.

Haneef's Q1 Plot

UPDATE: Turns out it was another crock of Murdoch shit. Boy, somebody in the AFP and/or at the Sunday Mail is going to be in big trouble! Right? Right???

Once again we are left to wonder: is the Murdoch press dutifully reporting the news, or deliberately helping create it? Today's Brisbane Sunday Mail reports that police found images of a landmark Gold Coast building and its foundations when they raided Dr Haneef's unit. But that's not all:

The investigation also is examining information seized in the raid which indicated the Gold Coast doctor planned to leave Australia the day before or after September 11...

The AFP investigation is also looking at information that Haneef was one of a group of doctors who had been familiarising themselves with the operation of planes at a Queensland premises.

It's all a little too perfect, isn't it? Is this more shoddy Murdoch Sunday tabloid journalism? Is it a desperate attempt by the Australian police to hit back at yesterday's widespread criticism of their screwed-up SIM card evidence? Is the evidence for real? Was the implied threat for real?

And if this was the "secret evidence" to which Rudd and others alluded, why could it not be mentioned? Why was Haneef's own lawyer not told about it? Why was Rudd so coy on TV? Was Howard supposed to be the one who delivered the information bombshell? Were they purposefully sitting on this information until Rudd started complaining about Haneef's treatment?

As a Gold Coast resident, I would strongly assume the "landmark building" referred to is the relatively new Q1 tower (photo above):

At 323 metres (1,059 feet), Q1 is the world's tallest all-residential building, when measured to the top of its spire.

In comparison, the Eiffel Tower is 300 metres (984 feet) when its 24 m (79 ft) antenna is excluded. Q1 overtook the 21st Century Tower in Dubai, United Arab Emirates as the world's tallest residential tower. It is the 20th tallest building in the world when measured to its spire, dwarfing the Gold Coast skyline with the closest buildings to Q1's height being the 220 m (722 ft) North Tower of Circle on Cavill and the under construction 240 m (787 ft) Soul building...

The Q1 Wikipedia entry includes some structural info:

The building is supported by 26 piles, two metres in diameter, that extend 40 metres into the ground then up to four metres into solid rock.

As with all such edifices, there was much excitement about the construction, which many locals (myself included) considered quite mad. "Why would you build such a thing after 9/11?" we asked. That was before we found out that our local council was in the pocket of big developers, mind you.

No doubt many tourists still wonder about the obvious WTC parallels. It's impossible to walk around such a building in the post-9/11 world and NOT think about planes slamming into the upper floors.

Of course, at the time of construction there were lots of news reports in the media about how safe this building would be, with heaps of photographic details showing why it was more solid than the World Trade Center. The Murdoch Gold Coast Bulletin was full of such stories. As I recall, it was front-page news when the foundations were poured, and there were a few more big front-page photos as the building went up. So the foundations and architecture were hardly a closely-guarded secret!

As a tourist to the Gold Coast, you simply cannot miss this building. It dominates the skyline, even if it is a few blocks walk from downtown Cavill Ave, the heart of Surfers Paradise. I would expect any visiting doctor to go take a look, take some photos, and maybe even read a bit more about it online when he got home.

Anyone with even a passing interest in architecture (or public safety) might also want to read about the construction and foundations. That's no crime - in fact, I have been Googling for info myself just now, so I guess I could get a knock on the door any minute!

But what about Haneef's purported plans to leave Australia "the day before or after September 11"? No crime in that either.

What about being part of a group that spends time "familiarising themselves with the operation of planes"? Was he playing Microsoft's Flight Simulator X? Is that illegal now? And where exactly are these "Queensland premises"? The local library? The online games cafe on Scarborough Street?

I work in a building just a few hundred meters from where Haneef lived and worked. I can see the Q1 building when I look out my lounge room window. My kids and I have wandered through its foyers. We still have a spare ticket to the Observation Deck. I think I have a right to know if there is any real substance to these allegations!

Unfortunately, this whole investigation has been a farce from go to woe. And our government has a very bad track record when it comes to hyping make-believe threats, hanging innocent men out to dry, and keeping the public ignorant. So what's a concerned citizen like myself to do? Go down to Brisbane's Wolston Correctional Centre and interview Haneef myself? I tell you what, if I thought they would let me talk to him, I might just do that!

And if I did, I would be sure to tell him about how the cops trashed his house, punching holes in the walls, and leaving the whole place "looking like a bomb went off" (as a workmate described it to me: I haven't seen any media reports about that, so I assume it is local gossip).

In the meantime, it seems, I just have to trust the Murdoch press, the Howard government, and the Australian Federal Police. Lucky me.

PS: The UK is about to make a constitutional change to the Attorney General's role.

Governments need an outstanding lawyer at the centre to ensure that their decisions are legally acceptable, and yet that closeness can lead to allegations of impropriety.

It is just possible, though, that Gordon Brown has found a solution. Last week, only five days after appointing Baroness Scotland of Asthal, QC, as the new Attorney-General, the Prime Minister announced that the post needs to change. A constitutional process will begin shortly.

What will the future hold? The current arrangement is unlikely to survive. As the Green Paper published on July 3 noted, there is an apparent conflict between the Attorney-General’s role as the Government’s chief legal adviser and her separate role as chief prosecutor and guardian of public interest. The Constitutional Affairs Committee, which has been looking at the role of the Attorney-General since the beginning of the year, has the same concern.

The solution that has been canvassed most widely involves the appointment of a general counsel to the Government, taking on the attorney’s role as the Government’s chief legal adviser, while responsibility for prosecutions would be wholly separated from government...

Mr Brown will appoint a general counsel whose views he trusts and who shares his party’s aims in Government. So will his successors. In this sense the job will be a political appointment. The advice of the general counsel will have to be of the best kind: straightforward and clear, logically unassailable, independent and never tailored to please. But, to ensure that the appointee is listened to when the most difficult and sensitive decisions have to be made, the party in government will also need to be confident that the general counsel is sympathetic, even if the advice is unwelcome. Individuals who are appointed to this job will need to establish their credibility both within government and externally.

Might be a good idea, that.

The Government's Got Nothing on Haneef

Is it time to ask what the fuck is going on yet?

Dr Haneef has been held without charge for more than a week under Australia's new anti-terrorism laws, and today the AFP will ask a Brisbane magistrate for more time to question him.

Come on. The police have raided this guy's house, questioned all his contacts, checked his phone records, and Lord knows what else. They haven't found any WMDs under his bed or bazookas in his cupboard (you could be damn sure the Howard government would have rushed to let everybody know about it if they had). If the cops still haven't got anything on Haneef, after all this time, they should let him go.

Here's the sum of the publicly-available evidence so far:

(a) He was related to the UK bombers,
(b) He was in telephone contact with the UK bombers (hardly surprising, if he is related),
(c) He was about to leave Australia on a flight to India (hardly surprising, if his wife really has had a baby),
(d) It was a one-way ticket (is that illegal now?), and
(e) His parents worked in Saudi Arabia.

The Australian police are interpreting the "24 hours" interrogation clause in our new anti-terrorist laws very liberally indeed. As Peter Webb from the Law Council of Australia explains:

It was never envisaged that 24 hours of interrogation time might take two or three weeks to complete, and that a person would be held uncharged, incommunicado from their lawyer, for that period of time. So we're concerned that the AFP have only so far used up 12 of the 24 hours of interrogation time, but that it's taken them 10 days to do that.

So now this bloke is just sitting in a Brisbane cell, with nobody even talking to him, while Aussie police race off to India, and British police race to Australia, and the global media stirs up a frenzy of idle speculation.

And even if and when the AFP do release him, ASIO will be waiting to arrest him and question him under seperate laws!

But hang on a minute... What if Haneef is innocent? That just doesn't seem to enter into the equation any more:

Federal Attorney-General Phillip Ruddock has rejected criticism about Dr Haneef's detention and says that with 31,000 documents to consider, police need time to cover every base.

"You would be asking me different types of questions if these enquires were truncated unnecessarily and we found out later that there were were avenues of inquiry that could have been pursued that ... weren't, and some terrible thing happened," he said.

A terrible thing is already happening, Mr Ruddock. The presumption of innocence is being flushed down the toilet, to protect your sorry PM's arse from an electoral wipeout.

Let him go, Ruddock. Put him on that one-way flight to India, if he wants, so he can see his wife and new baby (have police verified that birth yet? have the media chased it up?). Or else tell us what you've got. Don't turn this man into the next David Hicks.

UPDATE: All too predictably, the madness spreads to the USA. This is supposedly connected to the recent London bombings:

ABC News cited senior US intelligence officials as saying that new information suggests a small al-Qaeda cell was on its way to the United States or may already be in the country.

Separately, US Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff told the Chicago Tribune's editorial board his "gut feeling" is that the United States faces an increased risk of attack this summer.

Nothing to do with Bush's abyssmal poll figures, his looming Constitutional confrontation, or his ongoing quagmire in Iraq. Of course not.

Kevin Andrews Must Resign!

I recently suggested that readers send an email to Kevin Andrews telling him to resign. Now some enterprising online dude (or dudette) has gone one step further, setting up a website devoted to the task: Kevin Andrews Must Resign!

Go visit and add your name to the petition!

UPDATE: Kevin Rudd finally starts talking:

"Take this for example - on 27 July Mr Andrews says he would not release Dr Haneef from immigration detention, on 28 July he releases Dr Haneef from immigration detention," Mr Rudd told Southern

"I don't know the basis for the change in that position.

"On 28 July, Mr Andrews claimed that he had no objection to Haneef leaving Australia; on 29 July Mr Andrews claimed Haneef's decision to leave actually heightened rather than lessened his suspicions.

"And on 29 July, Mr Andrews claimed that Dr Haneef attempted to fly home to India, his baby having been born for a month at that stage, and later he admitted it had only been born six days previous.

"All I'm saying is that these positions are difficult for us to understand, those most recent positions and statements by Mr Andrews."

When You Make The Laws, Nothing Is Really Illegal

The transcript is not available yet, so here's a shorter version of Phillip Ruddock on Lateline last night:

Phil Ruddock on Lateline

Q: Does the case against Dr Haneef set a legal precedent?
A: I would have thought these this would be judged in a court of law, not the court of public opinion.

A: Is current handling of the case actually illegal?
A: I haven't formed a view on that. Courts have ethical obligations above and beyond their legal obligations.

Q: Has Haneef been charged with "intentional" and/or "reckless" support of terrorists?
A: My reading of the media reports suggests it is just the latter.

Q: Repeats above question, citing police doc stating that his support was "reckless" but not "intentional".
A: I have informed myself from public comments. These are not matters for which I am accountable.

Q: You don't know what the charge is? And you are the AG?
A: I have READ reports. I am not privy to further charges.

Q: Quotes charges.
A: I cannot comment on legal matters.

Q: Was Kevin Andrews given incorrect info?
A: Haneef's lawyers are challenging the minister. Not my business to intrude.

Q: This is about a SIM card, cousin is not charged with being part of a terrorist organisation.
A: Still none of my business. Recaps case.

Q: Shouldn't the AG explain these news laws as they are being used for first time?
A: Terrorism is very important. We need to balance rights with security. Main issue is bail. Intention of parliament was there would be a presumption against bail in such cases. Stricter laws may be needed.

Q: But this man just gave someone a Sim card!
A; That's what his lawyer says. We have protected evidence, which must be dealt with confidentially.

Q: Secret info Section 503a is what?
A; Info related to security.

Q: Intelligence?
A: Could be. Info that might compromise current investigations MIGHT be involved, etc. Other people might be involved. Blah blah blah. Court can test resonableness of info.

Q: But Haneef and lawyers cannot see secret info.
A: It's up to the minister to form an opinion on character. That opinion will be tested in court.

Q: Is this secret info it admissible as evidence in court?
A: Yep.

Q: Judge can see it but lawyers cannot?
A: Yep.

Q: Such evidence is being used to take away a man's liberty. What about cited evidence of Haneef's good character?
A: Nothing to do with anything, not my business. Separate issue. Decisions can always be challenged later in civil court.

Q: New anti-terror laws have had to be bolstered by Immigration Laws on first use - does that mean new laws are inadequate?
A: Still examining them, especially presumption against bail. We don't want terrorist suspects ever getting bail.

Q: How did you react to PM's offer to accept blame for bad polls?
A: He's a great leader.

Winners Are Grinners: Who's Clever Now, Eh?

Well, the latest Newspoll results vindicate Rudd's stance on the Haneef issue. They also confirm Australia's standing as a nation of stupid, racist sheep.

Forty-nine per cent of those questioned approved of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews' handling of the Mohamed Haneef case while 36 per cent disapproved.

In spite of this, Howard still did not get a poll bounce. Why not? Partly it's because Rudd refused to be wedged on the issue (and the poll results vindicate this as a "clever" political move). But it's also because Howard's handling of the Haneef fiasco is nothing new, as even Dennis Sham-I-am acknowledges:

The case of Mohamed Haneef is a classic point of the public refusing to give extra credit to a government doing what it is supposed to be doing. For weeks, the allegation has been that Howard, via Kevin Andrews, was trying to “wedge” Labor over counter-terrorism, was dog whistling to racists on immigration and scoring easy populist support.

The Newspoll figures show that while more people support the Government’s decision on Haneef, Labor is not wedged, thanks to Rudd supporting the decision.

Voters backed the decision to cancel the visa but weren’t about to go the next step into backing the Coalition politically.

If it was a dog whistle, it didn’t work; if it was the Government doing its job, it didn’t get any extra kudos; and it’s going to take more than a confected “mini-Tampa” or base appeal to racism to save the Coalition.

Someone call a doctor - Howard's looming health problem just came a big step closer. I wonder if they will do the whole rushed-in-an-ambulance-to-hospital thing? Of course it won't happen until after the APEC show next month. Only a big post-APEC lift in the polls will save his fat 68-year-old arse.

Whose Afraid Now, Boys?

So Doctor Mohammed Haneef is not a terrorist after all. Who could have guessed? Well, when I posted on this over two and a half weeks ago there were not many other bloggers speaking out in his defence.

Howard, Rudd, Keelty and many others have disgraced themselves over this. Kevin Rudd's decision to remain silent is also disgraceful. Yet again it is left to Bob Brown to speak truth to power:

Senator Brown says the Greens will be pushing for a Senate inquiry.

"You can't move beyind thinking that the mistakes here come out of the politicans in the Howard Cabinet wanting to put fear into the Australian public as a means of changing votes," he said.

Let's not forget the media's role in all this, either. There has been some excellent investigative reporting, but also some total lies. Were these lies fed to a compliant media, or were the media just making things up?

Surprise, surprise, it was News Ltd making all the pace. Given that Murdoch controls nearly every single SE QLD newspaper, including the free local weeklies, it shows where we are at, doesn't it?

The Australian leaked the transcript (a move criticized as illegal by Keelty). The Sunday Mail's outrageous lies about a plot to blow up a Gold Coast landmark were denied by Keelty himself within 24 hours. The Australian claimed police wrote in Haneef's diary, which Haneef himself denied. The Herald Sun published unauthorised photos of Haneef's flat, taken before the place was fingerprinted, totally compromising the evidence. Etc Etc.

Of course this was all desperate politics by desperate men, but once again it was the Murdoch media wot enabled all the fear-mongering nonsense.

And speaking of Murdoch, how does everybody feel about this GG article:

THE Australian Federal Police will form a 1200-strong paramilitary-style International Deployment Group to be equipped with the latest weaponry including armoured personnel carriers.

Ah, yes, those glorious boys in blue. Haven't they covered themselves in glory? Just like Hitler's SS troopers. Mick Keelty's head should be the first to roll here.

The people who are supposed to be protecting us are instead doing everything they can to scare the crap out of us. Worse yet, their hypocrisy and incompetence is actually increasing the dangers we face.

Howard is still insisting that Australia's anti-terror laws need to be strengthened in the wake of this case. That is bullshit. An innocent man became a political pawn. The anti-terror laws should be modified to ensure this never happens again. And the first step in that direction is some real accountability from this criminal government.

Lifestyles Of The Stitched-up and Framed

News Ltd does it again. The Herald Sun reports that Haneef's unit was not secured by the AFP for 96 hours after his arrest - then goes on to detail exactly what was in the flat and where. How do they know? Well, they have photos!

The first pictures inside Dr Haneef's modest flat show the simple life he led - and the depth of his religious commitment.

Taken within 48 hours of his swift departure, the pictures show a few basic dishes beside the sink, clothes drying on the balcony with others on an ironing board, and two suitcases on the floor.

In the sparsely furnished unit, Dr Haneef had a magazine with parenting tips, Gold Coast tourist guides, a blue teddy bear and religious books.

An Islamic guide on the wall lists prayers for all aspects of life, advising followers to "Live in the way of Allah, solely for the pleasure of Allah".

In a handful of books on a shelf was one called Ta'leemul Haq, covering the basics of Islam.

Gosh, it all sounds very suss, don't it? But wait a minute:

News Limited papers obtained the photographs which were taken before AFP officers dusted for fingerprints.

In other words, the security of the location has been compromised, and not a damn thing in this News Ltd report would therefore be admissible as evidence in court, and therefore it is not worth a pinch of shit as news.

But what does that matter when the whole aim of the exercise is to ensure that this Muslim foreigner is found guilty in the public mind? That's where the real political payback for all this half-assed police work and unethical journalism lies, right there.

Meanwhile, here's Doctor Haneef's baby:

I wonder what she is going to think of Australia when she grows up? I wonder what she is going to think of our much-vaunted values, and our much-hyped war of terror?

New Ltd Creates The News Again

Mick Keelty says a leak to Teh Oz undermines judicial process in the Haneef case:

The Australian newspaper has today published details about a taped police interview with Haneef, who is charged with providing resources to a terrorist organisation.

Commissioner Keelty says he has sought assurances the leak has not come from police officers and the only other people who had access to the documents are the prosecution lawyers and Haneef's legal team.

Here's the transcript in Teh Oz. He sure doesn't sound like a terrorist:

"Every drop of blood is human. And I feel for every human being," he said.

But talk about the thought police:

Simms: "I guess what I'm getting at is like what are your thoughts in relation to Iraq. The situation in Iraq. The situation in Afghanistan. Do you have any views on that?

Haneef:"Well I don't like to comment on the thing about (that).''

Smart boy. Just say you are opposed to the War in Iraq and they will string you up.

Andrews Suggests Critics Want Bombs In Sydney

Tune in to Kevin Andrews' fantasy:

"Sometimes when I listen to the critics I wonder whether people want a bomb to go off in Sydney before they'll actually do something," he said.

What a stupid thing for a man in his position to say. But what would you expect from a man who seems to think that he is the victim here:

"I'm in a position where I've got one hand tied behind my back.

"Ideally I would like to release information, but I'm being told by the Federal Police, please don't jeopardise the ongoing inquiry.

"One of the difficulties in this regard - and it's been a difficulty all along - is that there is an ongoing investigation both in Australia and in the UK.

"The Commissioner of the Federal Police, Mr Keelty, has said to me that this protected material, if released, could jeopardise that investigation.

"I think I have a responsibility not to jeopardise an investigation in this matter."

Let's just hypothesize for a minute about this "ongoing inquiry" and what sort of information might be so Top Secret that Kevin Bloody Andrew's cannot even hint at it.

It sounds like it is something that ties the Haneef case in with another terrorism-related investigation. And obviously Andrews doesn't have enough available evidence to charge either Haneef OR any other parties.

Now, given that Andrews thinks Haneef's decision to leave Australia at the first opportunity was suspicious, one really has to wonder what sort of fragile evidence is propping up this other investigation. Maybe Haneef bought a kebab from a bloke whose third cousin twice removed used to clean house for Osama Bin Laden's butcher's gardener?

I am not knocking real police work and the need for real investigations to be protected from politicisation and/or media sensationalism. But Rudd, Howard and Andrews all politicised this case before the facts were known. And this is all the more reason why Andrews should resign - when a man in his position has lost credibility, the public has a right to be sceptical.

It is the Howard government which has relentlessly drummed up the threat of terrorism, and implemented War Criminal policies which most certainly do make this a more dangerous country for ordinary citizens. Surely they of all people have an obligation to ensure that the Australian public has full confidence in those charged with leading this self-declared "war" on terror? If not, surely the whole thing is just a terrible, criminal hoax.

UPDATE: More here.

It's The (In)Credibility, Stupid.

What to make of the new Haneef dossier? First of all, this appears to be entirely new evidence, so it in no way changes the criticism of the government and the AFP to date. Secondly, the Indian police have not arrested Haneef, which just goes to show how insubstantial this new dossier is. Given that his cousin, who blew himself up in a London car-bomb, was close enough to share SIM cards, it's hardly surprising if Haneef has "come into contact with members of terrorist entities". You might have "come into contact" with terrorists yourself! Thirdly, the dossier talks of ""alleged links with al-Qaeda", but is seems those "allegations" were the ones made by the AFP itself, since the dossier appears to have been compiled after Haneef's arrest.

You know, there was once a guy named CurveBall who had a little document all about Saddam's attempt to buy yellowcake from Niger. On the basis of this document, George W. Bush started talking about Saddam nuking his neighbours, if not the USA, Condi Rice started talking about "mushroom clouds", and Tony Blair insisted that the whole Middle East was just 45 minutes away from Armaggeddon. Turns out the document was just a forgery manufactured by the Italian Secret Service, and almost certainly passed on to the CIA at the behest of a top US neocon named Michael Ledeen.

Credibility is a bitch, and this Howard government has none left. Faced with the very real threat of terrorism (which they themselves have inflated by their hypocrisy, lies and War Crimes), that is simply unacceptable. Kevin Andrews has to go, but so does this whole Howard government. Australians need a government we can trust on matters of national security, and Howard's government has proved - time and again - that it is happy to lie and fear-monger for partisan political gain.

Forgive And Forget? NOT!

The Haneef case will be an interesting litmus test of Kevin Rudd's desire to investigate his predecessor's crimes. As Tom Allard and Jonathan Pearlman point out, the enquiry will be severely constrained, with no power to subpoena witnesses and documents or investigate Scotland Yard's role:

Many of the inquiry's deliberations will be held in secret and the man heading it, John Clarke, QC, has been urged to step carefully lest he jeopardise the Australian Federal Police probe into Dr Haneef.

The inquiry's limited powers and restricted terms of reference, unveiled yesterday, fall well short of those given to the Howard government's royal commission into the "wheat for weapons" scandal involving bribes paid to Saddam Hussein's government by AWB.

We need full, transparent investigations into Haneef, AWB, David Hicks, and the decision to go to war in Iraq. I suspect a Royal Commission would uncover links between all these cases and more.

Murdoch Media Massages the Anti-Muslim Message

I just posted this comment on Blogocracy, but Tim Dunlop has again censored me. Let's see if he has the balls and the integrity to at least address it:

The Murdoch press has been an integral part of this whole Haneef story throughout. Given that Murdoch controls nearly every single SE QLD newspaper, including the free local weeklies, that's probably no surprise.

The Australian leaked the transcript (criticized as illegal by Keelty). The Sunday Mail's outrageous lies were denied by Keelty himself within 24 hours. The Australian claimed police wrote in Haneef's diary (Keelty now denies this too). Etc, etc, etc.

This is all just part of a concerted global effort across all Murdoch publications to promote fear, sensationalize and distort the real issues of terrorism, and stifle the ugly truth about our Oil War in Iraq. It's also part of a pattern of lies supporting the Bush, Blair and Howard governments.

I am not saying that there is no good reporting coming out of News Ltd. I'm saying that there is a hell of a lot of half-assed bullsh*t and straight-out lies. And there are never any repercussions, written apologies, or accountability.

"What's going on", Tim? Maybe you should be telling us... It's about two weeks now since you copped the heavy hand of Murdoch censorship with barely a whimper of protest.

Seems to me that News Ltd in Australia could do with an Ombudsman/woman, as the NYT and WaPo have in the USA. I would suggest a national boycott of the Murdoch press, but it's a bit hard to ignore the world's biggest media outlet when they are continually MAKING the news, rather than just reporting it.

Of course, it's not just the Haneef case: News Ltd has been fancifully creating the news on behalf of Howard's slow-train-wreck government for the past six months, with no luck.

And here was me, way back in April, thinking that Rudd had ass-kissed his way to the lodge after wining and dining Rupert in NYC! But as Greg Baxter, the director of corporate affairs for News Limited, said way back in December:

Your "Beazley-bashing gathers momentum" (November 20) reports that Rupert Murdoch will back Labor if it installs a Kevin Rudd-Julia Gillard leadership ticket. This is wrong. No one at News, including Murdoch, has given any hint of any such thing to Beazley, Rudd or Gillard or to any apparatchik on either side of politics, or to anyone in the press gallery.

Well, there's not doubt about that any more.

Wanker Of The Day

Murdoch hack Greg Sheridan:

THE Howard Government has behaved entirely reasonably in the case of Mohamed Haneef, the Brisbane doctor accused of helping terrorists...

Rudd knows the immense danger of standing against measures to protect the community from terrorism. The amendments will make it harder for defendants in terrorism cases to get bail. If Rudd backs the Government's amendments, there will be some angst from the Burnside crowd. But if Rudd opposes the amendments, it could conceivably cost him the election.

And of course, that's what this is all about, isn't it?

Imagine if the authorities had someone in custody who was genuinely a terrorist and the terror plot was in the 36,000th piece of encrypted information on his computer. And imagine if they released this terrorist after getting through 10,000 such pieces of information and a terrorist outrage occurred that they could have prevented.

Imagine if someone smashed a steel-capped jack-boot right into Sheridan's mouth.

We live in a democracy in Australia. This means, among other things, that parliament is constrained by the courts. But parliament is superior to the courts in making laws. That's what makes us a democracy. Parliaments are accountable to voters. Courts aren't.

So parliament can just ignore laws, or make new laws, whenever they seek a surge of xenophobic support. That's Democracy, m'kay? Robert Mugabe and friends, please take note.

If any part of our system has performed badly here, it is the courts for refusing to implement the intention of the legislation, which is that bail should be rare in terrorism cases.

"Rare"? This is the first implementation of the new anti-terror laws. The judge had to decide if the evidence of a public danger warranted bail or not. He clearly and emphatically decided that it did not. That doesn't seem to enter into Sheridan's cerebrum, which is wired to see terrrrrsts on every corner.

If this case is to set a standard for anti-terror cases in Australia, then the bar has been set very low indeed. Every one of us should be concerned.

The government keeps hinting that is has damning secret evidence available. But it cannot show the evidence, and it cannot explain why it cannot show the evidence. A government with a better track record on truthfulness and human rights might be able to get away with that sort of nonsense - this one certainly cannot.

The Haneef case perfectly illustrates all that is wrong with the approach to terrorism adopted by the Bush, Blair and Howard governments. Minimal threats are over-hyped for partisan political purposes. To maintain the charade, our governments are forced to attack civil liberties, which they happily do. This damages our true democratic freedoms and makes a mockery of our professed values. It enrages the scape-goated victims and their supporters around the world, contributes to anti-Western propaganda of violent radicals, and thus ultimately exacerbates the more serious and growing threat of global terrorism.

But maybe that's the whole idea, right? Create a new "long" War On Terror out of nothing, to replace the Cold War profits so long enjoyed by the military-industrial complex. Enrage Islamic radicals so that we have a good excuse for the next war, and the next, till all the oil wells in the Middle East are ours. Nothing else seems to make any sense.

Terrorism: What Would Gandhi Have Done?

His grandson speaks:

Asked what he would have made of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden and the Islamist Taliban militia in Afghanistan, Mr Gandhi said: "He would have stood up to them."

"The Muslim and non-Muslim issue was a very important issue in his life in India, and he was killed because many Hindus thought he was friendlier to the Muslims than was necessary," the former Indian parliamentarian said.

"So today, he would never agree with the idea that there's something connected between Islam and violence or Islam and terrorism. He would totally oppose that idea."

I am sure Gandhi would have spoken out honestly and loudly. By contrast, our leading politicians only make a noise when it is in their interest. They fall silent when leadership is most needed. They pedal a nonsensical version of reality that is as corrupt and dangerous as the jihad they claim to oppose.

Here's Alexander Downer hypocritically accusing Labor of playing politics over the Haneef case. I mean, how morally bankrupt can you get? The only accusation you can make against Rudd is that he hasn't jumped in and played the game. Sure, he should have stood up for Haneef's civil rights, but he knew what was coming so he let Peter Beattie do the media thing.

So the whole thing has back-fired on the government. Downer is pissed. It's time to muddy the waters, then walk away, and public interest be damned.

Find Me Something, Anything

You've gotta be kidding me. This is starting to sound like the search for Saddam's WMDs:

NINE federal police staff members are still working full-time on the Mohamed Haneef case as the investigation of the Indian doctor - and the bill to taxpayers - keep ticking over.

That's not all - another five officers are providing assistance "periodically". The AFP is still working with authorities in Britain and India, who are probably also desperately trying to nail something - anything! - on Haneef.

Mick Keelty, resign now.

Is Hannef Howard's Last, Desperate Effort?

My Mum reckons there will be a snap election soon. She could be right. Meanwhile, great stuff from Jason Koutsoukis:

THE disgraceful treatment of Mohamed Haneef has all the hallmarks of a typical Howard Government political play.

Nasty, divisive, cynical and, of course, no involvement of the Prime Minister himself.

Remember children overboard? The whole Commonwealth bureaucracy knew this was nonsense, yet somehow Howard's office did not get the message that no children were ever thrown overboard.

The $300 million in bribes paid by AWB to Saddam Hussein? Everyone in Canberra seemed to know AWB was up to no good — except Howard.

That his workplace relations laws would make some people worse off? The newly published biography of Howard reveals that this was actually explained to Howard in cabinet — but the Prime Minister cannot remember that.

Then there was the terrible mess Howard got himself into in May by trying to deny the existence of a planned climate-change advertising campaign, on the grounds that the ads did not exist until they had got the ministerial tick.

With Mohamed Haneef now out of Australia, guilty of nothing more than having a relative who is a suspect in a terrorist case in another country, we have the Prime Minister again saying he knows nothing.

When will Howard take responsibility?

Probing Haneef

You have to wonder if George Brandis has some skin in this game? He says the Haneef probe should not begin till Mick Keelty has closed the case. In other words, never.

Tony Abbott admits the case was "obviously not the prosecuting authority's finest hour". No shit, Tones. Now you tell us.

Quote Of The Day

From the SMH's National Security Editor, Tom Allard:

The antics of Mr Andrews, and the reluctance of the Government to be held accountable in court [for the Haneef scandal], erodes one of the fundamental pillars of national security - the public's trust.

Indeed. If there is no accountability for government "errors", then the public can rightly assume that these are not really errors at all, but intentional strategies. In this case, they do not even pretend the bungled and embarrassing mis-handling of the Haneef case was an error at all.

But if our government is deliberately pursuing strategies which undermine the rule of law (think Hicks, AWB, the invasion of Iraq, and more), then citizens should rightly wonder whether their government representatives are just a pack of untrustworthy criminals.

So we find ourselves in a position where we must choose between respect for our government, or respect for the law, or (perhaps) respect for neither.

Then our government tells us that we are engaged in an epic "war" against terrorists, and that we must trust them to manage this war through secretive, behind-the-scenes strategies, because that is the only way (they tell us) that this "war" can be won.

Furthermore, we must allow them to dismantle or ignore any laws, checks or balances which might impede them in this "war". And we must agree to all this secretive, legally-dubious dismantling of civil rights because (they tell us) our own safety is endangered.

And yet studies show that it is our government's own bungled, incompetent mis-handling of this "war" (which should not even be considered a war at all) which is primarily responsible for increasing the threat of terrorism to our country.