Is this why Mohammed Haneef was treated so badly?

I've just had a light bulb moment, reading an AP report about the trial of the 2003 Mumbai bombers, who killed 52 people:

An Indian court on Monday found two Muslim men and a woman guilty in twin bombings that killed 52 people and wounded 100 in the country's financial capital, Mumbai, six years ago.

Two taxis carrying explosives blew up within minutes of each other Aug. 25, 2003, at the Gateway of India, a popular tourist attraction on the waterfront, and at a busy shopping complex.

The bombings were one of the worst attacks in Mumbai's history. No one else has been charged.

Ashrat Shafiq Mohammed Ansari, Syed Mohammed Haneef Abdul Rahim and his wife Fahmeeda Syed Mohammed Haneef were arrested under India's tough anti-terrorism law shortly after the attacks. (1)

I noted the name 'Mohammed Haneef' with passing interest. As regular readers (Hah!) of lefthandpalm will know, I had a sizeable swarm of bees in my bonnet about the arrest and detention of Mohammed Haneef in Australia, in 2007 (2).

Then, the aforementioned moment of illumination:

Judge M.R. Puranic said all three were members of Lashkar-e-Taiba, a banned, Pakistan-based militant group formed in the 1980s — with the alleged blessing of Pakistani intelligence — to sow trouble in the disputed Kashmir region. The three denied involvement with the group. (3)

A vague memory was stirred. Wasn't Mohammed Haneef linked to an India terrorist organisation? I checked (4). He was. He was alleged to have been a member of SIMI, the Students' Islamic Movement of India, "a clandestine organisation that has frequently been held responsible for bomb attacks in India in the name of Islamic extremism" (5).

Dots started to get joined up in my head. Was there a link between SIMI and Lashkar-e-Taiba? I did what every two-bit internet detective would do, and zapped the names through google. According to Indian police, there are:

The terror outfit Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) has been providing the necessary training and support to the Students Islamic Movement of India (SIMI) and Indian Mujahideen, which have been behind the recent series of terrorist attacks in India, Delhi Police said on Saturday.

-snip-

"When LeT's terrorists were arrested (Pakistan's intelligence agency) ISI had a problem internationally. So their strategy was to train more and more people of Indian origin. So they approached SIMI and Indian Mujahideen and coordinated with them," Singh said.

"SIMI provided the money and execution support to the Indian Mujahideen,” he added. (6)

That's from 2008, whereas the luckless Mohammed Haneef was detained in 2007, so there isn't quite an overlap - but it is an interesting pointer, and it raises some questions.

When Mohammed Haneef's name was run past the anonymous Bangalore police source (7), did it sound familiar enough to set alarm bells ringing and prompt the source to identify him as a possible terrorist? Was Haneef, essentially, detained, humilated and smeared because he had the dual misfortune of having a terrorist as a distant relative, and a "John Smith" sort of name?

Was Mohammed Haneef detained, even though Syed Mohammed Haneef Abdul Rahim had ALREADY been in custody in India, for YEARS?

This might seem a bit tenuous, but compared to the case the Australian government made against Haneef, it is cast iron and impregnable.

1 - "Indian court finds 3 guilty in 2003 Mumbai bombing," by Rajesh Shah for the Associated Press, published 27th of July, 2009. Hosted by Google. (http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNjVY5coVaWXDeh2BqKTonWF7vIQD99MOC4G0)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/search/label/Mohammed%20Haneef
3 - Associated Press article, op. cit.
4 - "Suspect linked to Indian radicals," by Dennis Shanahan, published in The Australian, 18th of July, 2007. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22092906-5006786,00.html)
5 - ibid.
6 - "SIMI, Indian Mujahideen new faces of Lashkar-e-Taiba: police," unattributed article published by the Indo-Asian News Service, reproduced by the hindustan Times, 20th of September, 2008. (http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/FullcoverageStoryPage.aspx?sectionName=NLetter&id=bb63827d-fad8-4eb8-a44a-c7e917e581daTerrorStrikesDelhi_Special&Headline=SIMI+IM+new+faces+of+Lashkar-e-Taiba)
7 - Shanahan, op. cit.

Haneef triumphant

Just before Christmas, the appeal by former government of Australia, against the court ruling restoring Mohammed Haneef's visa was dismissed:

An Indian doctor briefly charged over failed bomb attacks in the UK in June has won a court battle to return to Australia on a work visa.

The Federal Court of Australia dismissed an appeal by government lawyers against a judge's decision to restore Mohamed Haneef's visa.

Ex-Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews revoked the former Gold Coast Hospital registrar's visa on character grounds.

Dr Haneef was accused of links with failed attacks in London and Glasgow.

The decision by the former immigration minister to cancel the Indian doctor's visa was quashed by a federal court judge in August. (1)

So "hurrah" for that. Good to see that even when berserk rightwing racist goons seize control of the state with a combination of bribery and racist incitement, the courts are still strong enough to stand up to power. And that the Aussie public will (eventually) see through lies and charlatanism and boot the lying charlatans out.

There needs to be an inquiry into the case, however, to see how a reasonable action (detaining the cousin of a terrorist bomber as he tried to flee the country) developed into an attempt to thwart the will of the courts (2). The shameless lies and smears (3) of Kevin Andrews and his apparent personal vendaetta against Haneef need to be investigated as well.

1 - 'Haneef wins Australia visa appeal ,' unattributed BBC article, 21st of December, 2007. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7155103.stm)
2 - 'Secret plan to keep Haneef in detention even after bail exposed,' unattributed article in Thaindian News, 14th of November, 2007. (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/secret-plan-to-keep-haneef-in-detention-even-after-bail-exposed_1003450.html)
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: (http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/mad-dog-andrews-continues-snarling.html)

Towards a tipping point

The reactions of various factions of the left to the Urewera raids (1) has been interested and varied. Some of it has been entirely predictable - cries for revolution and racial violence (2)from subversion addicts who don't seem to realise this sort of thoughtless extremism is what prompted the police to act in the first place, through more thoughtful condemation (3) of police use of terror legislation, to wary support (4) of the police action as a response - perhaps in appropriate and over the top - to a genuine perception of real risk.

The latter have been given a pretty thorough going over. Chris Trotter has been branded a coward, Bomber Bradbury a scab (5). McCarthyite calls to bar Trotter from meetings of the Auckland Defense Committee, and veilled threats against him, have been bandied about (6). It is a glum truth that the left doesn't need a rightwing opposition. Internal, factionalised squabbling will can render the left ineffective far more quickly than the right could hope to.

I've stated my support for the actions of the police, but it is qualified and limited. I do not believe that New Zealand police are arrant fools, nor that they would spend eighteen months and eight million dollars (7) on an operation if they did not have credible evidence of a threat, nor would they arrest 17 people across the country, and subject many more to stress and disruption, in some sort of show of force for the Hell of it.

Idiot/Savant takes a different approach, but he/she is busy re-fighting the Ahmed Zaoui battle with the SIS. Because the security services were in the wrong then, and behaved like incompetent fools, it does not mean they must be doing so again. The fallout of the Zaoui affair, and the Haneef affair in Australia, will have been in the minds of the police before they launched the raids.

As will the risks, beyond the damage to the police's credibility if the raids were a half-cock beat up. The reverberations will be felt for years to come. It isn't something that the police would have undertaken lightly. Contrary to what some of the more paranoid voices on IMC believe, the police are not simply the fascistic arm of a state intent on smashing all opposition. Things would be a lot more simple if that were the case.

So, qualified and support to the police. I'm not comfortable with the use of the misbiggotten terror legislation. Not because I believe those arrested are all blameless and innocent of any wicked intent, but because it is bad law and should be scrapped. So I hope that the terror charges are dropped in favour of more sensible charges.

Also limited support. I believe that there is a period of grace where a reaction - not matter that it be wrong headed and over-the-top - can be supported. When Ahmed Zaoui arrived in New Zealand, detaining him was justified, so that the security serivces could assess whether or not he posed a risk to the people of this country. Everything that followed was wrong, bordering on wicked, but initial detention and investigation was merited. I've ranted and raved extensively about the treatment of Mohammed Haneef (23 posts, to be precise, all of them condemning the cowardly, venal behaviour of the howard government (8)) but my first post on the matter was not until 13th of July, where as he was initially detained on the 2nd of July. Arresting the cousin of a terrorist as he tries to leave the country is a valid response. Detaining him for weeks, on trumped up charges, some of that time in solitary confinement, while leaking lies, misrepresentations and spin about him is not. So my support for the actions of the police in the current raids won't spring eternal.

1 - Termed such for simplicity.
2 - As described previosuly on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/10/best-of-times-worst-of-times.html
3 - Idiot / Savant has argued that the terrorism charges are bunk on No Right Turn. An example: http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2007/10/middle-nz-will-recoil-in-horror.html
4 - Messrs Bradbury, Trotter and myself. See http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/10/best-of-times-worst-of-times.html for further consideration.
5 - A comment made on Aotearoa AMC: http://indymedia.org.nz/mod/comments/display/82393/index.php
6 - Both on IMC Aotearoa. The implication that Trotter should be
barred from Defense Committee meetings is here: http://indymedia.org.nz/mod/comments/display/82351/index.php ("I didn't think he was involved in teh actual committe - just that he gets let through the door too much. How disgusting though! He should be ashamed.") and the implied threat of violence here: http://indymedia.org.nz/mod/comments/display/82683/index.php ("It's good to have the coward Trotter there so he can see an activist community united against the likes of him. The last meeting he didn't dare open his mouth, and if he had said anything stupid with the actual family members of his imaginary terrorists present, there were "bouncers" present to deal with him.")
7 - 'Top Maori were terror targets,' by Joseph Lose in the Sunday Star Times, 21 October 2007. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/sundaynews/4245183a15596.html)
8 - Not a good word for poor old John Howard, Mick Keelty or Kevin Andrews anywhere: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/search/label/Mohammed%20Haneef

Lawyers want a probe into Haneefgate

With brilliant timing, just as John Howard had called an election, Mohammed Haneef's lawyers want an investigation (1) into how so much inaccurate information came to be levelled against Dr Haneef:

Peter Russo, Dr Haneef's lawyer, has welcomed the finding and is of the opinion that it was a flawed case from the very beginning.

''The difficulty with what's happened really now is it has left it open. It's really created more questions than it has actually answered,'' he has been quoted as saying by the Australian media.

''Perhaps it's something that needs to have an inquiry because the biggest difficulty we've got is that we don't know where the misinformation came from,'' Russo added. (2)

This follows an independent review which found that the case against Haneef contained "errors of fact" (3). It is not unresonable to wnat to know how so many errrors, of such magnitude, happened. The investigation should also cover why the police and ministers were so willing to leak material on Haneef, of course.

Howard's decision to call an election for the 24th of Novemeber, in the immediate aftermath of the Haneef appeal, scheduled for November 15th (4), looks even stranger and even more suicidal. Perhaps he's hoping is party will get such a trouncing that Costello won't be around to depose him.

And Kevin Andrews continues to behave in an apalling manner:

Meanwhile, in an unrelated case, a Federal Court judge has criticised the Australian Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews over the 'involuntary removal' of a man to New Zealand. In what is being considered as an ‘unprecedented’ attack, the judge has gone to the extent of calling the Immigration Minister's action as "truly disgraceful." (5)

Business as usual. But hopefully, not for much longer.

1 - "Haneef’s lawyers seek probe into charges," unattributed article on sify.news, 13th of October, 2007.(http://sify.com/news/fullstory.php?id=14542740)
2 - ibid.
3 - "Australia 'terror doctor' case flawed: review," unattributed AFP article, 12th of October, 2007.
4 - sify.news article, op. cit.
5 - ibid.

Andrews and Keelty turning on each other?

Games up awareness seems to have percolated through the inches thick, scaley hide that shields Kevin Andrews's from heavy blows and new ideas. Faced with the very real possibility that his ministerial career, akin to the dinosaurs in its lumber process and pea brained-ness, may be facing its own dinosaurian extinction, he has done what any good Australian 'Liberal' would do - lash out at others to divert attention to himself.

First though, the shocking revelation that ALL IS NOT AS IT SEEMS in the Haneef case. Indeed, it would appear that the allegation made against Dr. Terror, aka Mohammed Haneef, DO NOT QUOITE STACK UP. Catch your breath. I know that will have been a shock to you all.

Kevin Andrews, it will be recalled, claimed that Mohammed Haneef and his brother Shuaib had engaged in a very suspicious internet chat (1), prior to Haneef's attempt to flee Australia like a craven terrorist. Never mind that brother Shuaib has not been linked publically with any terrorist schemes in any way shape or form. This is the genius of the Andrews doctrine: Haneef is tainted by his association with cousin Kafeel. So Shuaib, through his association with Haneef, must also be guilty. So a conversation between the two of them can not be innocent. Follow me so far?

Anyway, Andrews came up with a summary of the potent exchange between Haneef and Shuaib. It was obviously edited, but Mr Andrews, presummably with our best interests at heart, ommited some cardinal details, such as the fact that terrorist-by-association Shuaib had in fact TOLD HANEEF TO LEAVE HIS CONTACT DETAILS WITH THE BRITISH POLICE (2).

Truly, you can see Haneef and Shuaib learned to be terrorists alongside second cousin Kafeel Ahmed, the Glasgow bomber who suceeded in killing himself and no-one else. Keystone, or Keeltystone, cops Australia has already, but now it seems the lucky country is lucky enough to be blessed with Keystone terrorists as well, whose idea of making a surreptitious exit is to ask leave of your employer, and tell the police how to get in touch with you. Perhaps they wanted to mock the police after eluding them, who knows? But that seems unlikely.

The consequences of his blundering have finally reached Andrews's fore-brain, and his Liberal survival instincts have kicked in. Presumably, he looked for some minority ethnic group, preferable immigrant, to blame, but found none available. So the blame is to be placed on the shoulders of the equally saurian Mick Keetly. Responding to suggestions that he had selectively quoted evidence to frame Haneef, Andrews claimed angelic innocence:

But Mr Andrews rejected the notion that he had misled the public, unfairly tarnished Dr Haneef or even selectively quoted from the discussion.

"That is absolutely not true," his spokeswoman told the Herald. "That was only the material that the AFP would enable the minister to release. There is still a range of material we could not release on security grounds." (3)

The AFP was also blamed for Andrews being given false information when mulling the decision to cancel Haneef's visa. The trend is becoming clear - the hapless Immigration Minister, mislead by Mick Keelty, is not responsible. Though even if we accept this rather ludicrous idea, it still leaves big questions unanswered about Andrews's competence to do his job, if he has been lead such a merry dance by Keelty. It looks likely that Andrews Rex (or Andrews Wreck) is doomed to extinction. Hopefully the other Liberal dinosaurs will also be wiped out in the near future.

1 - As desribed at an earlier time on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/07/haneefs-internet-chat-more-evasion-and.html
2 - "Brother told Haneef to call police," by Tom Allard, Connie Levett and Craig Skehan, in the Sydney Morning Herald, 23rd of August, 2007. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/brother-told-haneef-to-call-police/2007/08/22/1187462354367.html)
3 - ibid.
4 - As described at an earlier time on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/07/big-holes-appearing-in-case-against.html

Australian Irony

The AFP have complained about the release of the second Haneef interview:

The AFP tonight attacked the release of the "confidential" transcript, saying
such leaks generated misinformed and speculative reporting. (1)

Whereas Kevin Andrews releasing partial transcripts (2), or Mick Keelty making weaselly insinuations (3), would not. No, I don't get it either. Just as well we have such fine men to do our thinking for us.

Though I suspect they may be trying to stupify us into submission with the blatant nature of their idiocy and hypocrisy. Or they are constructing some sort of real-world satirical meta-narrative, though given the intelligence of those involved, that seems unlikely.

1 - "Haneef lawyers release second police interview transcript," unattributed AAP article on stuff.co.nz, 23rd of August, 2007. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/4174387a12.html)
2 - as described on lefthandpalm at an earleir time: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/07/haneefs-internet-chat-more-evasion-and.html)
3 - As described on lefthandpalm at an earlier time: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/bit-late.html

Andrews admits anti-terror laws are wrong ...

... Because he feels they aren't broad enough. He is claiming that Mohammed Haneef walked free, not because of the fatal combination of a lack of any real charge to bring against him and the incompeence of the AFP and *cough* Kevin Andrews *cough*, but because they aren't wide enough:

"The reason why the charge against Haneef was withdrawn goes to the question of whether or not the people involved, or allegedly involved, in the UK were members of a terrorist organisation," he said.

"Had the legislation been written in a different way that referred to people engaged in terrorist activities, rather than a reference to a terrorist organisation, then it may well be he'd be facing a charge today." (1)

Obviously the people who drafted the laws were fools and incompetents. Who was that, then, Kevin? Perhaps that could have been sorted out, if more time was allowed for discussion before the law was passed. Again, whose fault was that, Kevin? (2)

Andrews is a fool. If the secret evidence is so confidential that it can't be revealled due to "intelligence concerns and the need to protect investigations" (3), then surely even hinting at it may jeopardise it? He should keep quiet about the whole thing, unless of course his true aim is excusing his behaviour.

1 - "Different laws would have caught Haneef, says Andrews," By Paul Maley and Hedley Thomas in the Herald Sun, 24th of August, 2007. (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22299479-662,00.html)
2 - If you're wondering, it was the Liberal / National coalition, which is lead by a certain John Howard, and in which a certain Kevin Andrews serves as Immigration Minister. Funny how these names keep popping up. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Anti-Terrorism_Act_2005#Chronology)
3 - Maley and Hedley, op. cit.

'Mad Dog' Andrews Continues Snarling

Like a dog with fleas, Kevin Andrews can't help but scratch:

Immigration Minister, Kevin Andrews, was at it again yesterday - casting aspersions against Mohamed Haneef without providing any details to back his claims.

"I have been provided with no information to lessen my suspicion in relation to Dr Haneef. Any further information I've been provided actually heightens my suspicion," Mr Andrews told reporters.

Perhaps it it is a learned reaction, like Pavlov's dogs salivating at the sound of a bell, Andrews and the Howard administration are so used to electoral reward for immigrant bashing they can't help themselves any more.

As usual, Andrews presents nothing to support his allegations, just vague suggestions that he's still holding back some dynamite revelations for the proper time. When that might be, or how allowing Haneef to leave the country fits in with the idea that he is a duplicious, terrorist fiend.

What Andrews doesn't seem to realise is that his continual slanders are becoming counter-productive. People will see through a magicians trick if they watch it done enough times - and the Howard administration has played this trick numerous times. Even the most knuckle-headed - or loyal - Liberal supporter must be wondering why, if Haneef presented such a grave and present danger, he was allowed to leave Australia.

Still, Andrews's latest outburst is instructive. Assuming that it isn't merely childish pique - and my opinion of Andrews is so low that I can't rule this out - it suggests the Howard administrationis going to carry on. Some pretext will be found to refuse Haneef's re-entry into Australia. The judge, while restoring Haneef's visa, offered an opportunity for theat the minister to make a further fool of himself, pointing out that

the visa could have legitimately been cancelled on the grounds that Dr Haneef was a person of interest to British police or based on the fact he had been charged with a terrorism offence (which has since been withdrawn) (2)

Hopefully, Andrews will take the bait, and the subsequent challenge to his decision will force the Australian government and police to reveal what they are holding back. Though when they do, expect it to be less than overwhelming.

1 - "The strange case of Doctor Haneef and Mister Hide," by Tom Allard, in The Sydney Morning Herald, 22nd of August, 2007. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/the-strange-case-of-doctor-haneef-and-mister-hide/2007/08/21/1187462266217.html)
2 - ibid.

Rule of law restored in Australia

Mohammed Haneef has won his appeal (1) to overturn the cancellation of his work visa for Australia. The decision by a Brisbane court suggests that the courts in Australia won't cravenly follow the rule by ministerial fiat witnessed in the Haneef case. Of course, Queensland Magistrate Jaqui Payne had already tried to do some elementary justice for Haneef, only to have her efforts quashed by Kevin Andrews (2). It is fitting that it was Andrews's decsion to cancel Haneef's visa, thus effectively cancelling Payne's decision on bail, that has now delivered a fatal blow to the Howard government.

Andrews was found to have committed a "jurisdictional error" (3), which means the court found he had over-stepped his authority. Bad judgment and incompetence have been a feature of this case. Haneef was detaiend on spurious charges, his visa was cancelled - a bullying tactic intended to keep him incarcerated - as a result of false information given to Andrews by the AFP, and then finally, the absurd travesty of Haneef being released and bustled out of the country, with John Howard (5), Mick Keelty (6) and Kevin Andrews (7) lining up to make nasty insinuations about Haneef's character. The Howard government have shown themselves willing to mis-use power to hang on to it. Hopefully, they won't have it too much longer.

The court decision marks - HOPEFULLY - the end of the Howard administration. They've nailled their colours to the mast so firmly, losing this round must be a huge setback. There are a few months still to potter through, and I wouldn't put it past Howard to try to cook up some new fear and loathing scare story to try to scrape another victory. But the Haneef case will probably be seen as the last act of his political career. Beyond this - again, HOPEFULLY - lie the dismal prospect of defeat and the possible ignominy of losing his seat. I'd feel more sympathy for him if he hadn't spent so much of his time in power making himself so utterly intolerable.

1 - "Court restores Haneef's work visa," unattributed article on NDTV, 21st of August, 2007. (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070023299&ch=8/21/2007%201:02:00%20PM)
2- "Terror suspect loses visa," unattributed AAP article, in The Age, 16th of July, 2007. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/haneef-detained-at-villawood/2007/07/16/1184438205768.html)
3 - NDTV article, op. cit.
4 - "Cleared Indian doctor leaves Australia," unattributed AFP article on Yahoo, July 29th, 5 - 2007. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/070728/8/11mj.html)
5 - As described on lefthandpalm at an earlier time: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/human-rights-commissioner-calls-for.html
6 - As described on lefthandpalm at an earlier time: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/bit-late.html
7 - As described on lefthandpalm on at an earlier date: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2007/08/more-bilge-from-kevin-andrews.html

AFP try to gag Haneef's lawyers

Although they thought it was okay for Kevin Andrews to release material from the second police interview with Haneef, the AFP don't want Haneef's lawyers to do the same:

The AFP have provided Haneef's lawyers with the transcript of the 12 hours they interrogated the Indian doctor before charging him on July 14 with providing resources to a terrorist organisation.

That charge was dropped when the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions decided there was not a reasonable prospect of conviction. Haneef's lawyers were given the interview transcript on August 8, the day the doctor's appeal against Andrews' decision to cancel his work visa on character grounds was heard in the Federal Court, The Age reported on Friday.

In an accompanying letter, the manager of the AFP's domestic counter-terrorism unit asked Haneef's lawyers not to make the transcript public. (1)

This lack of even-handedness suggests that the AFP aren't neutral in this - perhaps Andrews and Keelty have realised that they sink or swim together.

1 - "Fresh brawl over Haneef's second interview," unattributed PTI article, in The Times of India, 17th of August, 2007. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Rest_of_World/Fresh_brawl_over_Haneefs_second_interview/articleshow/2286796.cms)

Rawnsley saga continues ...

A wise man once said,

Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages
appear, so to speak, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the
second time as farce. (1)

TVNZ is the Australian government, Louis Rawnsley for Mohammed Haneef. Another tale of bureaucratic bullying, soon to collapse into a similar shambles. I don't know why TVNZ has decided to give the Australian government and police a run for their money in the unpopularity stakes, but they're uping the ante in the Rawnsely affair. Describing the discussion that led to Rawnsley's sacking,

TVNZ spokesperson Megan Richards said Mr Rawnsley was sacked because what he said to Mrs Rankin was "verbal abuse".

"This was a very visible and aggressive challenge and completely inappropriate from any staff member," she said. (2)

That, as they say, is fighting talk, and might come back to haunt TVNZ. At the moment, they are making themselves out to be the bad guy in a Haneef style David and Goliath confrontation. Especially since a lot of their staff seem to be pretty pissed off about this high handed treatment - as they should be (3). If TVNZ can boot someone with 24 years service, then who is safe?

MEanwhile, TV3 are enjoying themselves immensely, caliming that Rawnsely was marched out of the building' (4) and reproducing an email (5) from TVNZ CEO Rick Ellis to all staff. Again, he leave quite a few hostages to fortune:

I can say is that the staff member was dismissed after verbally abusing a
member of the public who was a guest on Breakfast.

The job of this staff member is to meet and greet members of the public, to
be the public face of TVNZ. And critically, while they are on the premises this
role has responsibility for the security of members of the public.

His behaviour was totally unacceptable to TVNZ. Guests on our shows
and to the building, regardless of their views on issues of the day, should not
have to put up with abusive behaviour from staff members but particularly those
whose job is to be the welcoming and safe face of TVNZ.

I want to make it clear that this was not the case of a staff member having
a friendly discussion with a guest or communicating a contrary opinion to that
expressed by the guest. (6)

This could all come back to haunt TVNZ. Rawnsley is sticking to his version of events, and Christine Rankin is not commenting on the affair (7). I predict that TVNZ is going to tough it out a while longer, will engage in the sort of sematic wriggling about the definition of 'verbally abusing' in the same way as Kevin Andrews has bent the word 'association' into a shape that suits him (8), though no-one else would recognise it as valid, then be forced into a climb down, as it transpires that the case against Rawnsley is hopelessly weak.

1 - "The 18th Brumaire of Louis Napoleon," by Karl Marx, 1852. Reproduced on http://www.marxists.org/. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1852/18th-brumaire/ch01.htm)
2 - "TVNZ staff object to guard's dismissal," by Simon Collins, in the NZ herald, 9th of August, 2007. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=74&objectid=10456627&pnum=0) 3 - ibid.
3- ibid.
4 - "TVNZ CEO defends sacking of security guard," unattributed TV3 article, 8th of August, 2007. (http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/Story/tabid/209/articleID/32152/Default.aspx)
5 - ibid.
6 - ibid.
7 - Collins, op. cit.
8 - "Haneef case rests on guilt by association," by Cosima Marriner in the Sydney Morning Herald, 9th of August, 2007. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/haneef-case-rests-on-guilt-by-association/2007/08/08/1186530447617.html)

Human Rights Commissioner calls for Haneef inquiry

Even though John Howard has already ruled it out (1). Howard is quoted as saying "We don't need a judicial inquiry, that is a politically inspired call by Mr Rudd," (2) which is pretty brazen as his own claim that there is no need for an inquiry is as obvious a piece of sweeping troublesome political dirt under the carpet as you could wish for.

Anyway, the ACT Human Rights and Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Helen Watchirs, has added her voice to the demmands of the Greens and the johnny-come-lately Labor Party for an investigation, saying:

"I think an independent inquiry by a judicial officer and possibly the police integrity commissioner to look at the actions of the AFP (Australian Federal Police) is needed,

"I'm not sure who would do an inquiry into the DPP (Director of Public rosecutions).

"You would probably need an independent judge with Royal Commission powers to do that." (3)

Expect a total-refusal-to-care-what-other-people-think from the Howard camp.

Meanwhile, Howard has made another invidious comment about Mohammed Haneef, rejecting Haneef's rather naive request to be given "honorary" Australian citizenship with the implication that Haneef is a bad person:

"I’m not sure that we have honorary Australians anyway, but he wouldn’t be the
sort of person you’d make an honorary Australian" (4)

What does that mean John? Do you have anything to back up this calumny? If so, why did you let him go? Or do you just like making nasty comments about innocent people?

1 - "PM rules out Haneef inquiry," AAP article in the Sydney Morning Herald, 3rd of August, 2007. (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/pm-rules-out-haneef-inquiry/2007/08/03/1185648123176.html)
2 - Ibid.
3 - "Human Rights Commissioner backs calls for Haneef inquiry," unattributed ABC article, 7th of August, 2007. (http://abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/08/07/1999065.htm)
4 - "Howard rejects Haneef’s request," unattributed article in The Hindu, 6th of August, 2007. (http://www.hindu.com/2007/08/07/stories/2007080771711100.htm)

More bilge from Kevin Andrews

Just when it looked like Kevin Andrews couldn't get more contemptible, he finds a new way to make himself seem unlikeable and stupid, making another snide comment designed to suggest Haneef has something to hide:

Haneef has been protesting his innocence. There's an appeal on foot.
Normally people stay around to see the outcome of their appeal. (1)

Normally, people don't get arrested on spurious charges and have false allegations made against them by the police either, but lets put that to one side for now. Haneef also has a new born daughter, though I expect, at any moment, Andrews will claim her existence is a ruse. Andrews is either very stupid, or thinks we are, if he thinks people to agree with him when he suggests that wanting to be with your family, after what Haneef has been through, is unreasonable.

This sort of arrogance and total contempt for how mere normal people think or feel isn't surprising. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer captured the attitude of the Howard government throughout this affair rather well, though unintentionally, when he equated simply saying 'We screwed up, we're sorry about that' to grotesque abasement:

And foreign minister Alexander Downer has scoffed at calls for the Australian
government to apologise after the charge against Dr Mohamed Haneef was dropped.

"What do you expect them to do - fall on the ground and grovel, eat dirt? I mean, get real,'' he told reporters at Sydney airport. (2)

Yeah, it might be nice to see that, actually, if only for novelty value. Though a simple apology would do as well. But Howard and his cohorts aren't renowned for saying sorry to people of colour (3), so I'm not holding my breath.

1 - "No regrets over Haneef case: Andrews," unattributed Press Trust of India article reproduced on NDTV, 5th of August, 2007. (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070021537)
2 - "PM sticks by besieged Andrews,"by Sid Marris, Matthew Franklin and Patrick Walters in The Australain, 30th July, 2007. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22155705-601,00.html)
3 - "Howard rebuked over Aborigines,"unattributed Reuters article, reproduced on tvnz website, 22nd May 2001. Yes, I know it is old, but somethings don't change, do they? (http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/425822/40903)

A bit late ...

More stupidity from the shambolic Aussie police force. Mick Keelty is looking very silly, now.

AFP chief Mick Keelty today stressed the investigation into Dr Haneef was far from over, suggesting police could still submit a new brief of evidence against him.

Dr Haneef returned to India at the weekend after prosecutors dropped a charge against him on Friday, nearly a month after he was initially arrested.

Mr Keelty today defended the police handling of the case, denying that the investigation had in any way been bungled.

"At the moment it is quite annoying that people are saying this is a bungled investigation," he told reporters.

"It is not bungled at all. It is continuing.

"It's still potentially possible that a brief of evidence will be submitted against Dr Haneef." (1)

Can you spot the problem here? If Haneef may still face charges, why was he permitted to leave the country? if he presented a threat to Australia, rather than just an opportunity to the Howard government to look tough and show how effective the nice new anti-terrorism laws were (ha! ha!), then why was he allowed to go? Letting a potential terror suspect is, surely, negligent, especially when you'vew already had him in custody for several weeks.

More likely Keelty is simply trying to appear tough and impressively unrelenting in his pursuit of terrorism. Id so, he hasn't suceeded for this latest statement is either pathetically childish - like a kid shouting insults after the person they are mad at has left the room - or an unwitting revelation of the biggest bungle so far. Seizing an innocent man, holding him on trumped up charges and then releasing him because your case was judged incompetent, looks bad. Allowing terror suspects to slip through your fingers is a much worse look.

1 - "Haneef may face further charges," unattributed AAP articel in The Age, 1st August, 2007. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/haneef-may-face-further-charges/2007/08/01/1185647970378.html)

More on Haneef ...

It looks like the conversation was relating to Haneef's possible connection (association, as Andrews would like to call it) to the botched terror attacks of cousins Sabeel and Kaheel. This still doesn't prove anything at all, beyond that the family were aware of events in Britain (unsurprisingly) and brother Shuaib (still, it is important to remember, not suspected of any involvement in terrorism) was warning his brother not to say too much to his employer, as getting home to his child was the priority.

Absurdly, Andrews is still claiming that a five line exchange represents the matter and the meaning of the discussion between Haneef and Suaib:

Mr Andrews defended criticism he had selectively released details designed to taint Dr Haneef, instead of making public the entire second police interview that would provide proper context.

"That was the material (released) which formed the substance of that internet conversation," Mr Andrews told ABC television.

"That is basically the conversation.

"As far as I'm aware there's nothing that's been left out of that." (1)

Andrews has not been aware of stuff before, like when he was not aware of the differences between Haneef's answers in the police interview and the affidavit the police supplied Andrews with. Ignorance is bliss. It is also politically useful and expedient.

Andrews then gets childish, complaining about Haneef talking to the press in India:
Mr Andrews questioned why Dr Haneef had not held a press conference before heleft Australia at the weekend.

"He's done numerous press conference in India ... why didn't this bloke actually turn up and front the Australian media and let them ask questions?" he said. (2)

Unfortunately, whilst Andrews was spouting this truculent crap, it emerged, via haneef's lawyer, Peter Russo, that this might not have been by choice:

Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo said the government placed a media gag on his client as a condition of departure, with the doctor limiting himself to a thumbs-up sign before boarding a Bangkok-bound plane leaving Brisbane Airport. (3)

That needs to be substantiated, of course, as the media have made plenty of bungles of their own. Even if it isn't accurate, you couldn't blame Haneef for choosing to get out of Australia as soon as possible, in case the government changed its mind and decided to detain him again. Hmmm. Home, family, liberty and new baby vs Australia, on my own, at risk of being arrested or detained again, pretty much on the whim of the erratic and frequently unaware Kevin Andrews. Not a tough choice.

1 - "Minister 'selective' on Haneef chat," unattributed AAP article in The Age, August 1st, 2007 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2007/08/01/1185647937959.html)
2 - ibid.
3 - "Cleared Indian doctor leaves Australia," unattributed AFP article on Yahoo, July 29th, 2007. (http://nz.news.yahoo.com/070728/8/11mj.html)

Haneef's internet chat - more evasion and shiftiness

This should have been the big one, the revelation that made me eat my civil liberties hat and run wailing to the warm (and perhaps too close, too long) embrace of Kevin Andrews and John Howard. A "transcript"(1) of a conversation between Haneef and his brother, Shuaib. This was one of the key factors considered by Andrews in cancelling Haneef's visa.

Here is the "transcript," which isn't actually a transcript, but a re-construction put together from "based on evidence released today by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews"(2)

Shuaib: Nothing has been found out about you. When will you be getting out?
Haneef: Today.
Shuiab: Have you permission to take leave? What have you told the (Gold Coast) hospital?
Haneef: I told them my baby was born in an emergency caesarean.
Shuaib: Tell them that you have to (leave) as you have a daughter born. Do not tell them anything else.(3)

The source article makes some vague references to "Auntie" and the use of Haneef's phone, but without context these are meaningless. And that's all we're to be given. There is more, apparently, but we have to trust the authorities who have lied, mislead and bungled at every turn in this case. Bugger that.

So, back to the "transcript." First query - why just a five line extract from a longer conversation? What we are given, presented in the light of the swirling panic about terrorism, looks incriminating. Of course it does. It is meant to. Andrews has his neck on the block, and he's not going to jeopardise his political future by playing fair. He might be paranoid, or he might be disingenuous, but either way he's presenting the information in the way that puts the best light on his blundering conduct.

What if Shuaib, immediately prior to the the "Nothing has been found out about you," had said, "I asked Firdous if she knew when you were coming home, and mum, and auntie ..."? This would render "But nothing has been found out about you" completely innocent. And the rest of the conversation immediately becomes munadane. His brother is asking when he is coming home. Haneef tells him it is today. Brother Shuaib wisely tells him not to give too much information to the hospital, because you should always keep your reasons simple and not be too dramatic.

This is a perfectly reasonable interpretation of what we have been given. Without seeing more, we can't judge if it is correct, but why would Andrews only release this fragment if the rest of it did not strengthen his case?

Second, much more important, point - Shuaib is, as far as we know, suspected of nothing and has been accused of nothing. The suggestion is that he is involved in the plot. So the guilt by association that was applied to Haneef is now spread to his entire family. Without any evidence to back this up, this is just another calumny attached to the family by a snivelling, hopeless government, trying to look tough and decisive.

1 - "Alleged webchat between Mohamed Haneef and his brother," unattributed article on news.com.au, July 31, 2007 (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22166791-2,00.html)
2 - ibid.
3- ibid.

"Don't misrepresent OUR truth."

Yet more twists in the Haneef saga. Yesterday, it seemed the police had some how managed to write incriminating data into Haneef's diary(1). Now it seems this wasn't the case at all. AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty stated that nothing was written into Haneef's diary:

"Police at no time made any notations or additions to Haneef's diary," he was quoted as saying in the media.

"As this matter is currently before the court, it is not appropriate for the AFP to elaborate in greater detail," Keelty said.

He said the episode highlighted the problem with releasing records of police interviews before they could be presented to a court - as Haneef's lawyers did last week.

"When misinterpreted or taken out of context - and in the absence of other material that will be placed before the court - this has the potential to undermine the court process," he said. (2)

It seems that the text in question wasn't actually written in the diary, but was a seperate piece of paper(3) and it has all been an innocent bungle by the AFP, mixing their own papers up with Haneef's.

What still rankles, though, is the hypocrisy of Keelty, warning us against the dangers of misrepresenting or misinterpreting information, which is exactly what the AFP did when they presented a misleading affidavit in court and to the immigration minister(4). The affidavit alleged, incorrectly, that Haneef had flatted with wannabe martyrs Kafeel and Sabeel Ahmed, and that he did not offer an explanation as to why he was leaving Australia on a one-way ticket. This is stinking hypocrisy by Keelty.

Next up? John Howard to lecture us on the immoral use of press scare stories to engineer election victories?

Meanwhile, the inevitable weasel suggestion was made that anyone protesting the treatment of Haneef might not be entirely patriotic, courtesy of Foreign Minister Alexander Downer:

"I do worry about the resolve that we have to confront and defeat terrorism," Mr Downer told the Nine Network.

"Every time there is somebody arrested and facing charges, there's some sort of controversy about 'oh the poor thing, he must be innocent, this is all being cooked up for some particular reason'. (5)

Downer needs to grow up. He sounds like he's the second-stringer on a poor school debating team. No-one has suggested that Kafeel Ahmed is a poor, innocent victim. The reason Haneef's case is controversial is because the charges laid against him were specious, even before it was revealled his Mobile SIM wasn't found at the scene of the Glasgow attack, several inconsistencies have been found in the police transcript of his interview, his visa has been cancelled possibly as a result of these inaccuracies, he has been treated like a terrorist with out any evidence of terrorist intent being shown and even if innocent he is likely to be deported. Impugning the loyalty or determination of those who don't agree with the government's vile treatment of Haneef is pathetic.

1 - "Another day, another blunder in Haneef case," by Hedley Thomas and Andrew Fraser in The Australian, July 23, 2007. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22117624-5006786,00.html)
2- "Australian police denies writing notes in Haneef's diary," unattributed PTI story in The Hindu Times, 23rd July 2007. (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200707231421.htm)
3 - "AFP Rejects Haneef Claims," unattributed AAP article in The Age, July 23, 2007. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/afp-rejects-haneef-claims/2007/07/23/1185043027971.html?page=2)
4 - "Discrepancies in AFP's affidavit: Reports," unattributed PTI article in The Times of India, 20th July 2007. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Discrepancies_in_Australian_police_affidavit_Reports/articleshow/2219797.cms)
5 - "AFP rejects Haneef claims," unattributed AAP article in The Age, July 23, 2007. (http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/afp-rejects-haneef-claims/2007/07/23/1185043027971.html?page=2)

Haneef did have leave from hospital

Given the continual crash of collapsing claims surrounding Mohammed Haneef, this should come as no surprise:

Contrary to some of the early misinformation, Dr Haneef had permission to take
leave. He had been granted approval by a hospital administrator.

Are there any allegations against Haneef that haven't been debunked or at least shown to be questionable? The only one I can think of is the suggestion he was associated with the banned radical Islamist organisation SIMI while a student in India. But nothing has emerged to support this claim.

1 - "Hard to be anything but cynical," by Hedley Thomas in The Australian, 19th July 2007. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22096916-5006786,00.html)
2 - "Suspect linked to Indian radicals," by Dennis Shanahan and Kevin Meade, July 18, 2007. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22092906-5006786,00.html)

Trial by smear

It seems leaking is a bad thing when done by lawyers protecting their client's reputation against falsehood(1), but by that much noted, mysterious political alchemey when done by those intent on destroying a man's reputation(2), it is a good thing.

Apart from being smeared with the suggestion that he supported the terrorist attacks in Britain, the police have had to deny rumours that haneef is being linked to terrorist plans to carry out attacks in Australia(3). Astonishingly, it seems the police actually wrote the names of terror suspects into Haneef's diary(4) - WHY, WHY, WHY? - and then interrogated him over this 'incriminating' document.

It also seems that defending Australia from terror is only a priority until it starts to make the government look bad. Once that happens, Australia takes a back seat and political survival insincts kick in. It looks like Haneef may have the Criminal Justice Certificate, which is threatenin ghim with deportation, revoked(5), which is good, but not have his visa restored, which is bad. The result will be that he is deported. Which is a strange idea if he is as dangerous as he is made out to be. Surely, keep this potential terrorist cadre in confinement? Or, if he isn't dangerous, why deport him?

The government's handling of the visa issue has been shambolic. Some humilty, culpability and decency are in order. Likely? No, deport the problem, the Hell with his rights or any pretence of fair treatment. Which is startling hypocrisy from the government of a country once used as a dumping ground for Britain's legal problems.

1 - "Haneef's lawyer probed over leak," by Ian McPhedran and Rhett Watson in The Herald Sun, July 19, 2007. (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22096446-661,00.html)
2 - "Govt trying Haneef by media: lawyer," AAP article in The Brisbane Times, July 22, 2007. (http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/haneef-reports-wrong-keelty/20075422-p0n.html)
3 - "Haneef may be deported? Police accused of leaking allegations," PTI article in The Hindu, 22nd July. (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200707221920.htm)
4 - "Another day, another blunder in Haneef case," by Hedley Thomas and Andrew Fraser in The Australian, July 23, 2007. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22117624-5006786,00.html)
5 - "Haneef may be deported?" PTI article in The Economic Times, 22 Jul, 2007. (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Haneef_may_be_deported/articleshow/2224801.cms)

Big holes appearing in the case against Haneef

Significant errors have been uncovered in the case again Mohammed Haneef.

First, the police affidavit does not match the transcript of his interview:

According to the police affidavit, "On July 2 and 3, 2007 Haneef
participated in a taped record of interview with the AFP and stated-- Whilst in
the UK he resided with suspects 1 and 2 (alleged suicide bomber Kafeel Ahmed and
his brother Sabeel Ahmed), at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool."

However, in the record of interview, obtained by the newspaper, Haneef told
police that he lived at 13 Bentley Road, Liverpool, with several doctors, whom
he names. None were the two suspects. (1)

Second, the affidavit stated, incorrectly, that Haneef could not explain why he had booked a one way ticket:

The second major issue on which there is an obvious discrepancy is to do
with the fact that Haneef was trying to leave Australia on a one-way ticket. The
police affidavit claims Haneef had no explanation for this.

While in the taped interview, Haneef gives a detailed explanation saying
that since he did not have funds, his father-in-law had booked and paid for the
one-way ticket with an understanding that when he goes to Bangalore, the family
would arrange for the return ticket. (2)

Kevin Andrews, the immigration minister who cancelled Haneef's visa, read the affidavit but not the police transcript. If he used the affidavit to justify his suspicion that Haneef 'associated' with criminals, then the decision to cancel looks even shakier. Before, it looked premature and malicious. Now it looks like it might have been completely wrong as well.

Third, Haneef's SIM card was NOT found at the scene of the Glasgow attack(3) though it had been claimed in court that it was(4):

In Brisbane last Saturday, the court was told that Haneef's SIM card was found in the car that was smashed into Glasgow airport.

But the ABC has been told by sources in the UK and Australia that the SIM card was first seized by police eight hours later, when his cousin Sabeel Ahmed was arrested in Liverpool.

The ABC understands the Sabeel Ahmed was arrested with two phones, one of which contained Haneef's SIM card. (3)

I don't know how significant this third revelation is - let's face it, people stupid enough to claim giving someone a SIM card is giving support to terrorism probably won't care. But it shows how venal, incompetent and premptory the handling of whole mess has been.

Curiously, Australia has granted a visa to Haneef's cousin,(5) who can travel to Australia to provide support and comfort, though that may be tricky if Haneef is in solitary 23 hours a day. The granting of the visa is a bit odd as it is reasonable to suspect that he has 'associated' with the same criminals that Haneef has - so he should also fail the character test. Maybe the Aussie government is waiting for him to get through customs before arresting him, for providing moral support to a terrorist.

1 - "Discrepancies in AFP's affidavit: Reports," PTI report in the Times of India, 20 Jul 2007. (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/World/Rest_of_World/Discrepancies_in_Australian_police_affidavit_Reports/articleshow/2219797.cms)
2 - "Inconsistencies surround Haneef case," unidentified NDTV Correspondent, July 20, 2007 . (http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070019576&ch=7/20/2007%204:22:00%20PM)
3 - "Doubt cast on case against Haneef," unattributed ABC News story, 20th July 2007. (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/20/1983448.htm)
4 - "SIM card ties doctor to terrorists, court told," Daniel Dasey and Kerry-Anne Walsh in the Sydney Morning Herald, July 15th, 2007. " (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/07/14/1183833835435.html?from=top5)
5 - "Australia gives visa to Haneef's cousin," by Natasha Chaka, July 20, 2007. (http://www.business-standard.com/common/storypage_c_online.php?leftnm=11&bKeyFlag=IN&autono=25676)