Presumption Of Innocence

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boban

I've got no problem with the way he was treated and I can tell you I have no sympathy for this government. His detention only differs from others in that he can be held without charge for a little longer than others. Big deal. It's not the G Bay type of detention.

As to his visa, well I see it as a privilege not an entitlement. If there is any doubt about him or even his family, why on earth should we be taking the risk.

Too me, the system has worked very well thus far. We are not dealing with people who play by the rules (which does not mean our government shouldn't) so the rules/laws need to evolve with the situation with which we are now faced. That my friends is a fact of life.

BTW- I have no view on whether Haneef is a terrorist or not. I don't know as I don't have enough information to make an informed decision. Nor does anybody else posting their opinion.

---

I agree. Its not as if he has been beaten, tortured etc. He lost his freedom while the authorities tried to put together a case against him. His name and integrity may have been unfairly impugned, blame the media for most of that.

Not the nicest thing that could happen to anyone, and I certainly wouldn't like it to happen to myself or any of my family
however
what would all the bleeding hearts be saying if nothing was done, if they let him go and he then was part of a terrorist organisation that did commit an act of terrorism that targeted innocent people.

(I am not for one second suggesting that he is a terrorist or has links to any terrorist organisation)

Would the bleeding hearts feel any different if it was a member of their family that was killed because of a terrorist act?

I feel comfortable that due process has taken place, after all it has been decided that there was insufficient evidence to take it to court, or procure a conviction.

Remember a lot more guilty people are found not guilty than innocent people are convicted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

I the Crusades were pretty suss, as was Cromwell's invasion of Ireland..

---

Suss? Mate, they were flamin' appalling. It's no wonder the moslem world decided the christians were a pack of psychos. Mind you, that has no relation with the current tension between the two religions (anyone who carries a grudge for that long is enough of a psycho to be irrelevant). Cromwell was a prize loon himself - the horrors inflicted by his lot are right up there with anyone carrying backpack bombs.

The problem with moslem extremists is that they have found new ways to do what we and others have been doing all along, and that they are the current flavour of loony. I don't think any civilisation has much to be proud of when you go looking for the killers and the extremists.

The challenge we face is not to destroy the moslem extremists, but to stop the christian extremists from over reacting in return. We live in volatile times, but that's no excuse to let our side boil over. Remember, the hardest part of any fight is knowing when to step back.

Richard

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daddles

The challenge we face is not to destroy the moslem extremists, but to stop the christian extremists from over reacting in return. We live in volatile times, but that's no excuse to let our side boil over. Remember, the hardest part of any fight is knowing when to step back.
Richard

---

I agree Grasshopper. "Note the bamboo, it bends in the breeze but is never broken". There is unfortunately some part of human nature that allows us the most appalling behaviour to ourselves, our planet and our co inhabitants. I think that is what religions attempt to address but get diverted along the way.

To reciprocate the violence of modern extremism makes us one of them,

Sebastiaan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daddles

The challenge we face is not to destroy the moslem extremists, but to stop the christian extremists from over reacting in return.
Richard

---

That is not the problem as all religions are fanatical. What you call the extremists (in both muslim and christian religions) are actually the true believers and the so called moderates have lost part of their faith.

Hence there will never be a solution to the age old problem between Islam and Christianity as both seek to convert each other to their version of the true religion.

All we can do is be vigilant and adopt Zeds solution when we catch one of the terrorists.


Peter.

I hope that none of them rent a nice french, american or russian bomb to "proof" the unbelieving scum on the the side out of existance so they can use the land to build a temple in which they can priase thier own god of choice.

Start Quote
Hey MH

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?.

Of course you would have to interview him (as they did) if he was suspected of being part of a terrorist cell:rolleyes:. However, it became obviously apparent to us anti-Howard supporters that this was a botched job as time went by. Like the main evidence against him was it was supposedly his sim card that would be used to detinate the bomb. But it wasn't and they (the investigators) knew of that early in the peace but of course they didn't want to look stupid in their case so they spent time tying to discredit the poor guy. Do you remember that one of the ivestigators wrote details on some paper but tried to hang it on the poor doctor:((.

Hard questions. How would you deal with it. (MH leaves it to others but whines on the way :rolleyes:). Poor old Dazzler (who comes across as being a racist) is disappointed that his beloved Howard will be on his way after the next election. However, I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to pass the poison chalice over to Costello as soon as it gets through his thick head that it will lose in a landslide. Remember Dazzler as a citizen of this country I have equall as yours. You were just fortunate to have been born here.

Let him go and hope nothing happens. Let india deal with it?. Please show the text where I said he "should not have been interviewed".

End Quote


Sorry MH just found this, didnt mean to seem rude. For some reason your post wouldnt quote properly so I have block copied it. Your qoute is above.

How do you interview him :? . He is about to get on a plane to india. There is no right to interview him, he is free to leave, unless he is either arrested or detained. There was nothing about his sim card being used or planned to be used to detonate a car bomb. There was no main evidence. Just circumstantial evidence that he was questioned about.
The investigator made a mistake during the interview by referring to a photocopy of a page of his notebook that had writing on it. The dr stated it wasnt his so the D/S went and checked, came back and corrected it on tape.

FYI, frequently an interviewer will place an exhibit (say the notebook) in a sealed bag to show the suspect, and hand a photocopy of the document in question to the suspect so they can refer to it. They will often write on the police copy questions and lines of inquiry to prompt them during a lengthy interview.

Now you have to read this bit slowly, cause its important. The charges were dropped because it is not clear whether or not the alleged suspects in the UK belonged to a declared terrorist group. If the group is linked to a declared terrorist group then they will most probably reinstate the charge. It had nothing to do with the location the sim was found. This is why the charge was "recklessly" which removes the intent componant of the higher charge. IMO it would be a long bow to get up on anyway. Just another example of the media misreporting the facts.


Now to the more serious bits;


1. Please explain how I come across as racist, what comment can you point to that is racist or implies racism on my part?


1a. Perhaps others on the board can point to it so that I can apoligise to everyone. :)


2. Where have I suggested or intimated that I love Howard. What comment can you point to that shows this?


3. How does the fact that I was born here have any bearing on what I have said?


4. Once again, if you were the investigator, what would you have done at the airport given the concerns that had been raised about him? Concerns great enough for a pass alert to have been granted under the conditions explained earlier.

cheers


dazzler (who grew up being called "wogboy" in a small country town by our indigenous people :rolleyes: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

What, is no-one gong to argue? Come on!! Hiroshima was a terroist act: discuss.

:p

---

Eh? Come again? After Okinawa, who was going to pursue a land war when there was something available that might expedite a surrender? You being provocative Mr C? For the record, Gen LeMay reckoned if the war had gone the other way he might have had a war crimes problem but he was referring to the fire bombing strategy, not the nukes.

Not at all. What I am doing is demonstrating how the word 'terrorism' has been associated with a particular view or impression of what is constituted by the word when in fact it has a wider definition.

People associate terrorism with religious fundamentalists. Terrorism is any act that uses terror (or fear) to promote a political cause. Dropping a nuclear bomb to wipe out an entire city could have no other purpose than to demonstrate to the Japanese government what the capabilities of the US were and to shock or frighten them into surrendering - which is excatly what happened.

When it is drawn up in legislation, the extra criteria that the act must be illegal or not committed by a legitimate government to be considered terrorist has been added to protect the military. Otherwise they might be hoist by their own petard.

Once again, I'm not arguing whether or not the bombing was necessary, I'm arguing that terrorism is a broader term than people seem to believe and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion.

I'm in the middle of Niall Ferguson's book - War of the World. Many, many cases of genocide/cleansing that I had no memory or awareness of. By and large these all would be classed as terrorism. When I was growing up the "proper" terrorists were the likes of the Mau Mau. Of course the current religious problems go back to the crusades, very nasty & reciprocated and seemingly not capable of resolution....

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=282533


GO DAZZLER, GO DAZZLER


GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO DAZZLER :2tsup:







.

go Dazzler, Go Dazzler

:2tsup: :2tsup:

Exactly Dazzler. QED.

I reckon anyone detained under this legislation should not have any right to seek compensation if charges are not laid and/or upheld.

Why chance feeding a terrorist organisation with money

So there you all go again, believing what's written in the press at face value.

When the full script is available, I'll (well I won't 'cause I couldn't be bothered) draw a conclusion.

Yesterday (before this release) that well known Australian High Court Equivalent, Good Morning Australia, had a poll and nearly 70% of respondants thought Haneef shouldn't get his visa back. Well they wouldn't have dialed in if they hadn't had access to the whole 20,000 pages of evidence I'm sure, so they must be right.

So... does anyone think there might be a correlation between a popular poll, a politician's stance, and an edited snippet from an internet conversation?

Cheers,

P
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daddles

we should be ashamed of our govt's actions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boban

Terrorism works, like it or not.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by craigb

Yes, I would have thought so too. :D :D :D

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bleedin Thumb

the government can't be trusted to administer justice.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt. Zero

Silent C, what does a terrorist look like?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TEEJAY

(Man was born to hunt and kill)

---

I'm wondering if I'll have any of you to talk to tomorrow after this conversation's been intercepted??

P
:rolleyes: