The Australian politics thread

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by howardj

A] The revocation of the visa rested partly on the evidence tendered in court, and partly on material that is yet to be aired in the public realm.

B] Moreover, as I say, assessing whether someone is of good character is different to the standard of proof for a criminal matter.

C] The media seem to regard this, because of the agenda they are trying to run, as the first instance in the history of the legal system that criminal charges have been dropped against someone. Charges being dropped against someone is an everyday occurance.

So when he was originally given the visa his character was assumed to be sound, but now it isn't? Obviously, something's changed.

I think the point is that it's entirely possible the charges shouldn't have been brought about in the first place. Of course, we'll see whether or not this is the case when the minister presents us with the rest of the evidence...if he is able to.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Dasa

All I saw were paraphrased statements as the actual conversation is apparently too sensitive to release. Anyway, I don't know about you but I kind of have a problem with people being locked up while evidence is found to make a case against them. And I kind of have a problem with the govt making a big deal out of this when their actions are causing terrorism in the first place. And yeah, I have a bit of a problem with the climate of fear and suspicion that we see under Howard, that same climate that has resulted in our civil liberties being eroded in the name of this terrorist bogeyman. But, whatever, apparently criticism of the govt isn't allowed, so I'll just go grab my fridge magnet and cower in fear of the terrorists out to get me and everything I care about.

I was overseas when we got our fridge magnets...I've been left utterly defenceless!

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

I was overseas when we got our fridge magnets...I've been left utterly defenceless!

It's all right mate, just be alert, not alarmed.

[Jono]

LOL! Dasa, what a gun.

[R_D]

Originally Posted by Clapo

Correct me if i'm wrong but it's the AFP who aren't letting Andrews release the information?

Now i wonder if the AFP didn't want to present the proof to the court in the fear of security... that may explain why they weren't able to provide substantial proof to keep him locked away.

lol @ Dasa post.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Burgey

Clearly that sneaky bugger Haneef told the cops about the email conversatin himself.
Clearly the sneaky bugger tried to call the British authorities 4 (four!!!) times before he tried to leave Australia to tell them about his SIM card.
Clearly the info about the email conversation was raised at the bail hearing and in his record of interview.
Clearly the stuff Andrews spoke about yesterday was neither new nor secret. We're still waiting for the secret info, if indeed there is any.
And again I ask you, HJ, if the bloke is as suspicious as Andrews and Howard either believe or want us all to believe, why the hell did they let him leave the country?
The Australian, hardly a bastion of ALP porpaganda, got this right this morning in its editorial and in the piece by Hedley, who had the ROI leaked to him in the 1st instance. I commend both pieces to you.

Of themselves, those conversations do not prove anything. However, when added to the fact that he gave his SIM to the people involved in the bombing, and when added to further stuff like this: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...24-952,00.html there is no doubt that Andrews acted appropriately. That is, on balance, he was right to revoke his visa on the grounds that it could be 'reasonably suspected that he associated with those involved in terrorist activities'. That is a very low threshold.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Dasa

All I saw were paraphrased statements as the actual conversation is apparently too sensitive to release. Anyway, I don't know about you but I kind of have a problem with people being locked up while evidence is found to make a case against them. And I kind of have a problem with the govt making a big deal out of this when their actions are causing terrorism in the first place. And yeah, I have a bit of a problem with the climate of fear and suspicion that we see under Howard, that same climate that has resulted in our civil liberties being eroded in the name of this terrorist bogeyman. But, whatever, apparently criticism of the govt isn't allowed, so I'll just go grab my fridge magnet and cower in fear of the terrorists out to get me and everything I care about.

As I said in the post above, it is the accumulation of all the evidence.

As for your general rant - it's not surprising you go off on a different tack.

Stick to the debate - was Andrews, given all the evidence, entitled to revoke the visa?

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

So when he was originally given the visa his character was assumed to be sound, but now it isn't? Obviously, something's changed.

.

Errr yeah, this evidence has come to light.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by FaaipDeOiad

I remember when the accused had rights. That was awesome. Think we could go back to that?

That's a glib remark. No individual lives in a vacuum. Moreover, no law was breached here. His continued detention was overseen, at all times, by the judiciary. And when laws are passed (with bipartisan support) in a democracy, a Government is bound to act in accordance with those laws.

[JBMAC]

Originally Posted by howardj

That's a glib remark. No individual lives in a vacuum. Moreover, no law was breached here. His continued detention was overseen, at all times, by the judiciary. And when laws are passed (with bipartisan support) in a democracy, a Government is bound to act in accordance with those laws.

That is one of the fairest statements I have read regarding this whole affair

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by howardj

Errr yeah, this evidence has come to light.

Sooo...if the evidence doesn't have any grounding he should get it back yeah!?

At the moment we're being fed little tidbits suggesting there's some basis for this without really finding anything out at all...I understand there might be some sensitivity involved, but going through the process of saying 'there's more involved', then saying 'but we can't tell you what it is', is largely a waste of time in my opinion.

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by howardj

Stick to the debate - was Andrews, given all the evidence, entitled to revoke the visa?

Well, he doesn't need any evidence to revoke the visa really so of course he was entitled to. The question should be, was he right to revoke the visa - imo, he definitely wasn't.

[Dasa]

Originally Posted by howardj

That's a glib remark. No individual lives in a vacuum. Moreover, no law was breached here. His continued detention was overseen, at all times, by the judiciary. And when laws are passed (with bipartisan support) in a democracy, a Government is bound to act in accordance with those laws.

I think you'll find that it doesn't matter to many of those who are criticising the whole Haneef case whether the law was followed or not, because I (and I'm sure quite a few others) think that the law itself is unethical and a breach of the civil rights we would expect from a modern liberal democracy.

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by howardj

Of themselves, those conversations do not prove anything. However, when added to the fact that he gave his SIM to the people involved in the bombing, and when added to further stuff like this: http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/s...24-952,00.html there is no doubt that Andrews acted appropriately. That is, on balance, he was right to revoke his visa on the grounds that it could be 'reasonably suspected that he associated with those involved in terrorist activities'. That is a very low threshold.

It's a crap threshold mate, especially in the hands of that dolt. And frankly, even on that threshold, this was at best a questionable decision based on what we know. The threshold provides him with a very broad discretion, but the reasonableness test ought still apply, and will be challenged, I suppose in the FC.

Still waiting for the answer to the balance of the things raised in my post though. You seem to be suggesting that all of these things add up to an appropriate exercise of the discretion, yet there's nothing to suggest from either your good self or from the minister that he took each of these mitigating factors into account.

It stinks, frankly. I find it hard to beleive, mate, that you believe this is anything other than a stunt, and when it all went tits up they got him out of the country asap. I mean, given the seriousness of this alleged info, why the hell did they let him go?

[FaaipDeOiad]

Originally Posted by howardj

That's a glib remark. No individual lives in a vacuum. Moreover, no law was breached here. His continued detention was overseen, at all times, by the judiciary. And when laws are passed (with bipartisan support) in a democracy, a Government is bound to act in accordance with those laws.

I never claimed the actions were illegal, they were just fundamentally opposed to the values one generally expects of a liberal democracy, as Dasa said. Frankly, if your only standard of goverment behaviour is the letter of the law, anything is justifiable if you manage to get it through Parliament, which is clearly an absurd notion. It's fundamentally unjust to imprison someone without detailing their crime, to impede access to counsel, to imprison them before evidence is gathered, to withhold details of crime and evidence to the accused and the public after the fact, and so on. It doesn't matter if you pass "emergency legislation" which makes those actions legal or not. They're still shameful, as is the legislation which justifies them.

And trust me, I see it as a huge black mark against the "opposition" that there was bi-partisan support for those laws.