Hey, smart**s, you might know highjacks, but I know highjinks! (and regularly practice:D)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingermick
Printable View
Hey, smart**s, you might know highjacks, but I know highjinks! (and regularly practice:D)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gingermick
I always thought being a smart**s was better than being a dumb**s. :wink:Quote:
Originally Posted by TermiMonster
However, you did ask someone to tell you that you were wrong, and I knew that the statement was rhetorical, however I couldn't resist. :2tsup:
Maybe, maybe not.Quote:
Originally Posted by TEEJAY
Unless I got my time line wrong he was detained at the airport before the evidence (incorrect it seems) about the sim card was found.
So I would suggest it went something like this;
UK terrorist act occurs (crashing jeep etc) and UK police find link to our man in OZ. Not the sim yet as that was found from memory later after our man was grabbed.
UK notify OZ who then put a pass alert for if he tries to leave the country and should (would?) have organised for a surveillence team to find and track him. Now to get a pass alert there must be some evidence/intell that he has done something and that is to the level of reasonable suspicion. (not belief as in court)
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 applied.
I would bet london to a brick that the preferred option would always have been surv/phones off/ build a case but the case was forced by his impended departure.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
How did you come to that conclusion Dazzler? The Doctor was released without charge but they (the government) couldn't wait to get him out of the country before the media could find out his side of the story. I get the feeling that you think it is OK for innocent people to be kicked out of this country at will - without justice. How many lives have you saved whilst you have been on this planet. Have you ever met this Doctor - No I didn't think so but you are prepared to make aspersion's from what you read. Well my cousin has worked with him and she has told me that he was a very well liked Doctor who will be sadly be missed by his collegues as well as his grateful patients.
This is just another con job / bungling / cover up / incompetent act by this joke of a government. Remember what happened to Cornelia Rau, Children Overboard, and Weapon’s of Mass Destruction? It makes this country’s credibility a joke in international circles.
Btw, Kevin Rudd should hang his head in shame. 99% of Australians had the intelligence and awareness to sift through Government propaganda and speak their hearts out (including the Greens leader Sen Bob Brown). He too probably knew there was nothing to incriminate Dr. Haneef. Yet Rudd didn’t have the guts to take a risk and condemn the Howard government. Grow a spine, before you aspire to be the Prime Minister of the best country in the World. If left to me he nor Howard will be Prime Minister after the next election. To think they (politicians) will have had a 14% rise in the past couples of years - s--t decisions = more money in the pocket:no:.
MH
Hi MH
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.
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 :rolleyes: )
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?
Perhaps you could explain how the matter should have been handled? Put a make believe investigators hat on and work from the point that there is sufficient intel/evidence for you to obtain a pass alert preventing our good doctors departure. (To get the pass alert as an investigator you need to prove the fact you have reasonable grounds to Customs )
Agent MH, were relying on you.
cheers
dazzler
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.
I don't necessarily agree with that. My local mosque recently had an open day, all welcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by Article99
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
Now that's what I call grounds for arresting someone!!Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
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?
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:
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.
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.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.
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
any suggestions?Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by dazzler
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.
:D :D :DQuote:
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.
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.
Yep.Quote:
Originally Posted by echnidna
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
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
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.
Notice that the polls show a slight move back to the government, seems like they've got their "Children Overboard" for 2007
Sebastiaan
Who unfortunately is my local member.:(( :(( :(( :(( :Quote:
Originally Posted by craigb
Ever since that person, acting on his religious beliefs, convinced the government to interfere and overturn NT legislation on euthenasia I have regretted to be in his electorate and voted against him.
Not surprising that he acted this way, same way as he acted against the interests of all Australians in forcing upon us the Workchoice legislation.
Peter.
Hey
Watched the paid interview on 60 minutes last night and thought he came across as credible and believable.
Only two issues that were a little "off" was when he was asked if he had ever supported terrorism or terrorist acts and there was a pause and a long winded answer. Would have expected an outright "no" similar to the initial answer of "are you a terrorist" at the opening.
Also the answers to the money transfers were vague.
Outside of those I think he is no terrorist nor had terrorist leanings.
If there is a link, I would put my money on a link between him and one of the radical mosques or clerics/leaders when he lived in the UK. Not that he was involved in anything other than being there at some stage.
Maybe Andrews will release the intel today. Lets see if dazzlers on the money. :D -------------:-
I am not a fan of the Australian press but for all their faults I would sooner have them reporting what is happening no matter how one eyed than to have no reportage at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by bitingmidge
This is a democracy not a totalatarian state yet.
If we didn't have the press sticking their noses into this affair do you think he would of been release yet?
How is the public suppost to make judments about the effectiveness or integrity of their government without the press keeping them informed?
We do have a big problem with our press, two of which are (IMO)
1. Editorial style - everything has to be a big scandle or sensationalised.
2. Lack of independence - We have a system where the fortunes of a media outlet is dependant on the government giving them license's and changes of legislation regarding ownership rules - They're not exactly going to bite the hand that feeds them are they?
But to muzzle them... No way!:no:
Trouble is, the media interferes with the legal process. How many times have you heard "my client will have trouble getting a fair trial in light of the attention his case has been given". It must be virtually impossible in some cases to find jurors who have not read about the case in the papers or heard about it on TV. I tend to agree that it would be better that nothing was reported until a case goes to trial. After that, it doesn't matter. If it doesn't go to trial, then we can hear all about it.
But, yes, the problem with that idea is that the press have also been instrumental in bringing our collective attention to situations that should be rectifed.
Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Glad it's not my decision to make.
this argument will go on forever. I doubt that at any time will everyone sit down and say; :... Hmmm... good outcome, nice bit of legislature that.."
However i feel what is more important is punishing the CORRECTLY CONVICTED terrorist. Here is what I propose :
Dependant on the religion of the terrorist substitute:
Completely drape your convicted in his/her (non)prefered foodstuff.
- Red Meat on Fridays,
- Pork,
- Shellfish,
- Misc,
- OR whatever is banned by the particular flavour of the religious nonsense of choice...
Empty a magazine of 7.62 into thier chest and head.
Send them to meet thier god in the forbidden foodstuff and collect thier reward.
Dont laugh, im serious. if they all knew this was thier earthly prize/punishment perhaps the religious/noncensical fevour would not be so pronounced....
has there ever been an atheist terrorist?
There may have been, but I bet there was never an agnostic terrorist...
absolutely there are/were athiest terrorists... think any of the communists inthe past or present (eg african communist terrorists) and political terrorists such as the old german (was it? ) red brigade?? or even the IRA who espouse loathe of the poms rather than cat/prot...
IRA don't count, they are still purporting to be doing it for the church,:roll: even if they are so far from the church it isn't funny .... I don't remember any communist terrorists, they tended to go for using the masses to subvert the govt, not small groups as terrorists do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Zed
Though now I think about it, there may have been a hijacking somewhere, but cant really remember.. anyone??
Technically, terrorism has nothing to do with religion - it is a political 'strategy' used to attempt to reach some political goal. Religion is used as a justification for it, but I doubt that many terrorist acts have ever really had anything much to do with religion.
Also, by strict definition, the nuclear bombing of Japan was a terrorist act, because it was an attack launched against non-combatants in an effort to use fear to bring about the political aim of ending Japan's involvement in World War II.
Terrorism has become a pejorative term though and most people think of Arabs blowing themselves up with home-made bombs when it is used.
Im pretty sure in germany in the 70's was a group of terrorists who were commies.. reg flag, red hand, red banner or some such thing.. I think they had associations with the jackal...
what about drug cartels ? do they qualify as terrorists?
Maybe, maybe not. That's one of my issues... what you are saying is that he's effectively been tried in the press! Wrong place to be tried! The public has no right to administer justice in this way!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
What we would not have had, would be the AFP leaking the "evidence" so that public opinion would sway heavily against the nasty terrorist (as if that was necessary anyway :rolleyes: ) nor would we have seen the guy's defence leaking the full text of his interrogation. That must have been pretty inane too, because we didn't see anyone crawling over themselves to publsh the contents.
Both were wrong, and we didn't need to know either.
I didn't say the press wasn't to keep they informed.Quote:
How is the public suppost to make judments about the effectiveness or integrity of their government without the press keeping them informed?
The press must do so, AFTER the event. Once that has happened they have the right to make truly in-depth analysis, and it won't have an impact on the outcome, but it will certainly show any chinks in government integrity.
One of the reason the press don't do that now, is they can use stuff completely out of context to pre-empt, or even influence a decision!
Think about it!
Cheers,
P
well there was that bloke going to Tasmania who used a pencil to hold up the plane....Quote:
Originally Posted by Gra
P
:rolleyes:
I cede to the ape, it was the Red Army faction, and they only got one of the in the last couple of years, they blew up one or two buildings and killed a number of business peopleQuote:
Originally Posted by Zed
There was also the red brigade in Italy, that was funded by the Chec Stb, at about the same time...
As for drug cartels, they are more business/Criminal organizations than terrorist
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Timothy McVeigh apparently...... damn another theory bites the dust:)
What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.
:p
Well there is arguments for and against that definition, I believe the difference was it was a declared war, most terrorist organizations are not "officially" at war with the other side.. But it is a minor difference... I could be wrong there though (Usually are)Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb
See - he became an agnostic, but I bet he wasn't one when he blew that building up :)Quote:
In a recorded interview with Time Magazine he professed his belief in "a God", though he said he had "sort of lost touch with" Catholicism and "never really picked it [back] up." The Guardian reported that McVeigh wrote a letter claiming to be an agnostic, though his execution included a Roman Catholic ceremony.
Yeah he was a southern Christian redneck wasn't heQuote:
Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb