Comments on: FOI documents: AFP changed its tune on Haneef

By: Mirek

Mirek — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

It amazes me every time how the truth seems to come out despite earnest efforts to suppress it, and the repetition by some of old lies that have been long exposed, like the WMD`s!
At it`s height (or is it it`s low) the case against Haneef attracted about 600 agents with resources to match, and it`s reported that there are still a number of police assigned, all at taxpayers` money, long after the whole sorry and shameful affair has been exposed as a crude frame-up. Clearly, politically, there was a lot at stake for the Government, or they would not have risked a popular backlash, much less an international incident. I believe there were two reasons: 1. To create a climate af fear and uncertainty during an election campaign which could have easily gone either way, and 2. To show some results for the 20-odd `anti-terrorism` laws passed with the acquiescence of the Opposition, about which the public was getting increasingly sceptical. That is the reason that Dr. Haneef is still hounde

By: Ralph

Ralph — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Please keep pursuing issues of justice, few others are doing so. This whole affair and Andrew’s part in it is a shameful stain on our collective conscience.

Ralph

By: Tony Papafilis

Tony Papafilis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

So Greg Barnes, lawyer, resorts to politicallies to sustain his mythical case against Howard government. Kevin Andrewsa did not “interfere” with Haneef’s visa simply because of criminal charges. Surely Barnsy can be truthful enough to acknowledge that as the Minister, Kevin Andrews had power to cancel visas on basis of his own judgement over character of the visa holder and the opinons of others are essentially irrelevant. Kevin Andrews, as then Minister, exercised his power well to cancel the visa of a man connected to terrorists and who tried to flee the country, lying as to his reasons yet never satisfactorily explaining why his cousins needed his SIM card or why he lied.

By: Ray

Ray — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Given the revelation that Dr Haneef had been in close touch with his cousins who turned out to be terrorists, Kevin Andrews in his capacity as Immigration Minister acted properly and responsibly in exercising his discretion to cancel Dr Haneef’s visa.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

That this matter has shown the AFP to be incompetent is widely accepted. The question is did Kevin Andrews lie to the australian people? If he thus wilfully abused his powers for political ends then we need to know. Unfortunately Rudd & Co will play the political game but that is the essential question that needs to be answered and not opinionated on.

By: John

John — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Bill Clinton’s brother was a drunken cheque bouncer who did time-even while Clinton was president. George Bush’s daughters are convicted underage drinkers with criminal records. Come off it Tony Papafilis-put up your proof or shut up. Even the AFP with million dollar budgets and hundreds of their goons couldn’t pin anything on Dr Haneef .It’s people like you that this country should be afraid of. As for Kevin Andrews you can excuse him all you want. The blokes out of office, out of power and for the high jump.

By: Tony Papafilis

Tony Papafilis — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Greg Barnes did not notice the British gov’t deporting one of Haneef’s terrorist cousins’ relatives out of the country because he coul dnot be trusted due to his terror links. An innocent man does not try to flee the country and then lies when stopped from leaving. What explanation does Greg Barnes and other terrorists’ friends (or useful idiots as Comrade Stalin called such fools) have for Haneef leaving an Australian registered SIM card with his terrorist cousins in UK? They certainly did not need the card for financial reasons so surely it was to avoid detection while planning their psychopathic mass murder attempt. Explain it Barnesy or bugger off and take the other idiots with you. And David Hicks was an innocent tourist - though I notice the terror portectors have gone abit cold on him - bit like innocent Chappelle Corby.

By: davo

davo — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Come on, people: how many of you have had relatives in jail? Or relatives who are a bit dodgy, or even relatives whom you don’t like? Pointing at Haneef’s cousins and saying he’s one of them is a bit rich, isn’t it? Or should we arrest Dr James Wright because he is Chopper Read’s uncle?

By: goy

goy — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Question is Tony, will you bare your bum in Bourke street if Andrews is found to have acted politically rather than truthfully and fairly. Your assertion of the sim card holds no water. If it was so dangerous, one would have simply thrown it away. Given the widely known “anti-terror” laws’ power and implications at the time, anyone who may have been caught up in it would have made some attempt to be at arms length from it, so Haneef’s alleged action is not so surprising. To me, none of these actions are”terror” related, but to you, they are enough for a conviction.