AFP wrong about Haneef (1 Viewer)

[Snaykew]

Vote for neither mainstream parties.

 

[MMalone]

When looking at this case, one must admire the barrister that leaked the transcripts. The police were not letting their case be known to the defence, therefore the balance was tipped towards the prosecution. By leaking the documents and getting the public on side, the balance has been shifted back to the defence. Clever work indeed.

 

[jimmayyy]

lol @ all u bleeding hearts who think the AFP are racist and this is just about politics

 

[banco55]

lol @ all u bleeding hearts who think the AFP are racist and this is just about politics

That might be the preferable explanation. Instead they appear to be totally incompetent. You'd think the anti-terrorism section of the AFP would have the creme de la creme.

 

[jimmayyy]

When looking at this case, one must admire the barrister that leaked the transcripts. The police were not letting their case be known to the defence, therefore the balance was tipped towards the prosecution. By leaking the documents and getting the public on side, the balance has been shifted back to the defence. Clever work indeed.

yeh cos thats even better than having it tipped towards the prosecution?!

 

[jimmayyy]

ive been a great supporter o the howard govt, after this bullshit, and the stupid reason of entering the iraq war for "oil", i no who ill be voting this year.

O NOEZ I DUN LYK JOHN HOWARD SO I'LL VOTE 4 LABOUR THAT WILL MAKE IT ALL BETTER LOLZ.

 

[jimmayyy]

the AFP are tools. the whole things about politics, coz johnnie howards declining in the polls and wants to show how macho he is in combatting the terrorist prob. so he jus picks any old muslim that might have a relative who did something wrong and deem them a terrorist. now theyve been caught out and hope it comes back to bite them in the bottoms!

lmfao do you really believe that? or do you spout bullshit like this to jump on the bandwagon?

the AFP are an independant police, they aren't under control of, answerable to or influenced by the PM of the day. this doesn't have anything to do with Howard, you halfwait.

the people you should be roasting here (which i think is very a very pre emptive thing to do, why don't we wait for all the facts to come out in court before judging this bloke as innocent?) are the top ranking officers in the AFP, who, clearly, should answer to their own internal commisions if indeed they have arrested an innocent man.

 

[tommykins]

I find it ironic that people will complain that if hes let free with no charges, people complain that the police didn't do their work.

But if he's let free with no charges and ends up being guilty (plans an attack/admits it and whtanot) people will complain that the police didn't do their work.

IMO let them do what they want, it's not like theyre thinking "lets detain this motherfucker for 3 weeks for the lulz"

 

[PrinceHarry]

So true tommy, its not like they detained him and tortured him for forced confession. The fact that AFP is willing to admit mistakes shows the issue is transparent, free and fair. If it was his home country India he'll be beaten black and blue by now until he confess to being a terrorist. His jail cell is a luxury compared to where 200 million indians lives.

 

[onebytwo]

an interesting perspective:

Haneef - the view from India


Our contradictions as a people are astounding. Right now we are consumed with self-righteous indignation over how Mohamed Haneef is being treated by Australia. In his humiliation we see a sinister attack on our national pride. In the decision to scrap his visa we see the premature death of our own dreams of migration.
We want our Government to be less effete in its intervention. We think this is about racism, not terrorism.
In itself, this is a worthy (if slightly selfish) and laudable emotion. By all accounts, the 27-year-old doctor from Bangalore is being victimised and hounded. When the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, grandly declares that he is "not uncomfortable" with Haneef's continued detention, our outrage is spontaneous and entirely legitimate.
But what if Haneef had been arrested in Bangalore instead of Brisbane? What if a suicide bomber had rammed his explosives-laden car into the airport at Srinagar, instead of Glasgow?
Would we have been as concerned about whether an innocent man had been locked away? Would we have demanded transparency from our judicial process on the grounds that the evidence was sketchy? Or would we have ranted about how India is a soft state and Islam a factory for fundamentalists?
We have branded Australia as racist, but would we have called ourselves communal?
The overwhelming anger at Haneef's arrest would be a lot more reassuring were it not undermined by a distinct double standard. Turn your mind back to the 2001 attack on parliament.
In a case eerily similar to Haneef's, didn't our investigating agencies almost put an innocent man on death row? The entire case against Professor S.A.R. Geelani was based on the fact that he had some contact by telephone with the prime suspect in the days before the attack. It was left to the Supreme Court to throw out the case against the Delhi University lecturer and acquit him of all charges. I don't remember any public outrage defining the national response to the Geelani case.
If anything, most people seemed willing to believe the police and were impatient and dismissive of the do-gooder human rights activists campaigning for Geelani's release.
More recently, Tariq Dar, a Kashmiri model who made it big in Bangladesh, was locked away on charges of terrorism. Accused of playing a role in bombings in New Delhi in 2005, he spent three months in custody. Finally, the police were forced to concede in court that they did not have enough evidence to build any case against him and he was able to walk free. The judge who acquitted him was passionate in her ruling. But do you remember anyone you know sharing her anger? How can we possibly explain this hypocrisy?

According to reports, an Australian citizen, Roy Somerville, who has never met Haneef, emerged as an unlikely benefactor and offered to post the $10,000 bail because he believes in a "fair go". Can you imagine anyone in India bailing out a stranger implicated in a case of terrorism?
Of course, it is true that Australia has never known what it feels like to live in the shadow of militant violence and so its civil society may find it much easier to be benevolent. It is also true that the alleged involvement of Kafeel Ahmed, an engineer from Bangalore, in the Glasgow attack threatens several myths we have about ourselves.
India cannot pretend any more that none of its citizens fancies membership of the global jihad club. We need to examine where our secularism has failed.
But, equally, we still need to keep our democracy healthy. This means that as citizens of a modern, progressive country we should be able to demand transparency from our investigating agencies. It also means that when people are locked away on flimsy charges, we owe it to them and to ourselves to speak up, even if their politics and antecedents make us uncomfortable.
Seventy per cent of the men and women in India's prisons are still awaiting trial - that's a staggering 300,000 people. Some have spent more time in jail waiting for a court date than they would have had they been found guilty.
So, as we galvanise public opinion against the arrest of an innocent Indian in Australia, how about sparing some of that anger for the innocent Indians in India?
Barkha Dutt is the managing editor of NDTV 24x7, the leading English-language news channel in India. A longer version of this piece first appeared in the Hindustan Times.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/haneef--the-view-from-india/2007/07/24/1185043114417.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

 

[Snaykew]

Australians care about what happens in Australia or to Australians abroad more than anything else primarily.

 

[wuddie]

it is all way too convenient for the feds to just say they're wrong and make a simple apology, and then expect everyone just forget about it.

NO! someone has to go to jail for this, namely the chief prosecutor and the person in charge of this case. time and again the feds have been wrong and they get away with it too easily. the australian public should demand that someone should be set an example of.

another thing, if the guy is innocent, why does the immigration minister still wants him out of our country? it is down right prejudice, he should also face some consequence.

to me, feds and politicians are being over-protected. the public is crucified everytime they are 'suspected' of doing something wrong. what about the feds and the government, why do they get away with their wrongs just by apologising?

this really grinds my gears.

 

[Snaykew]

I'm sorry but why should the prosecutor goto gaol?

 

[banco55]

it is all way too convenient for the feds to just say they're wrong and make a simple apology, and then expect everyone just forget about it.

NO! someone has to go to jail for this, namely the chief prosecutor and the person in charge of this case. time and again the feds have been wrong and they get away with it too easily. the australian public should demand that someone should be set an example of.

another thing, if the guy is innocent, why does the immigration minister still wants him out of our country? it is down right prejudice, he should also face some consequence.

to me, feds and politicians are being over-protected. the public is crucified everytime they are 'suspected' of doing something wrong. what about the feds and the government, why do they get away with their wrongs just by apologising?

this really grinds my gears.

I don't think they were malicious just totally incompetent.

 

[wuddie]

I'm sorry but why should the prosecutor goto gaol?

because he was clearly wrong and put an innocent doctor into humiliation and quite possibly ruined his reputation despite the fact that he will be cleared of his charges. being the director, he didn't instruct his team to thoroughly check the evidence before go for the arrest, who's fault is that? the indian doc's?

to make it worse, the whole thing has been blown up by the media, so yes, someone has to go to jail.

 

[wuddie]

He may sue newpapers for defamation even if he obtained collateral benefits from the coverage.

how much is he going to get? $2?

as if he is going to spend more effort taking on newspaper companies and their highly trained lawyers, he'd be stoked to get out of this 'alleged terrorist' saga.

 

[banco55]

I want to know who they've fired.

 

[onebytwo]

This whole scenario is strikingly similar with the Hicks case. Hicks is to be silenced by being put in gaol til after the election. Haneef is to be silenced by being thrown out of the country.

 

[MaNiElla]

the guy is apparently homeless now too.

Dr Haneef's solicitor Peter Russo said he had `"no idea'' where his client would be taken.
Dr Haneef lived in a Southport apartment until before being charged but the unit manager tonight said his lease expired on Wednesday due to rental arrears.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22143906-2,00.html

 

[Karl Marx]

the guy is apparently homeless now too.



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22143906-2,00.html

im sure he'll be a very rich man soon enough