Haneef lawyers expose Australian government fake terror charges

Dr. Haneef's case illustrates the
Australian state's determination to participate in fake manufactured
terrorism through using its might against one innocent individual.
WSWS article

Last
week, lawyers for former “terrorism suspect” Dr Mohamed Haneef publicly
released the transcript of their client's second police interview. By
doing so, they effectively demolished what was left of the Australian
government's ongoing efforts to vilify the Indian Muslim doctor and
portray him as a conspirator in the June bombing attempts in London and
Glasgow.

Lawyers threatened

This
is the second time that Haneef's lawyers have exposed the government
and its methods by giving the public the opportunity to see for
themselves what the young man told the police, and how his answers were
then twisted and distorted by the authorities, both in the media and in
court.

In
mid-July, barrister Stephen Keim QC gave a journalist the transcript of
his client's initial July 3 police interview, revealing three crucial
false statements in the subsequent court affidavit drawn up by the
police. This proved to be a turning point, triggering the collapse of
the centrepiece of the government-police witchhunt-that Haneef's SIM
card had been found in the Glasgow jeep.

Attorney-General
Philip Ruddock retaliated with an unprecedented attack, accusing
Haneef's legal team of “undermining the law” and threatening to
instigate disciplinary charges against them. These threats backfired,
however, when the Queensland Bar Association strongly defended Keim.

Now
the government is trying to punish solicitor Peter Russo for releasing
the second interview. Russo told journalists he released it, at his
client's request, to again counter police and government “slander by
innuendo” and to show that Haneef had “nothing to hide”.

Ruddock
and Andrews responded by supporting AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty's
request to the Queensland Legal Services Commission (QLSC) to take
disciplinary action against Russo for “unprofessional and
inappropriate” conduct.

This
is also backfiring. The Queensland Law Society, the peak body of the
state's legal profession, has written to the QLSC saying it has legal
advice that Russo breached no professional conduct rule. “Mr Russo has
acted at all times in this matter in a dignified and wholly
professional way and has earned the respect and commendation of his
colleagues and the Queensland Law Society,” the letter stated.

“Dr
Haneef's defence team demonstrably took the action to release the
transcript of interview to correct public misconceptions that had
arisen due to the prior release of selected parts of this interview by
the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship Kevin Andrews.”

In
another sign of the legal profession's disgust with the government's
handling of the Haneef case, the Law Council of Australia, which
represents 50,000 lawyers nationally, called for Andrews's removal. Law
Council president Tim Bugg said: “The Minister's continuing public
comments on the alleged merits of the Haneef case, which are so
inconsistent with any sense of procedural fairness or the presumption
of innocence, provide sufficient cause for his removal.”

Ruddock,
Andrews and Keelty claimed that the release of the transcript had
compromised national security and ongoing police investigations. In
reality, the transcript contained no new evidence against Haneef, or
any information about anyone else. The names and addresses, phone
numbers and other details of Haneef's family and friends were blacked
out.

The
real embarrassment for the police and the government was that the
transcript proved the baseless character of their accusations. All the
available evidence confirms that they were prepared to jail an innocent
man for up to 15 years and destroy his reputation for life on the basis
of false information-and that they are now continuing the witchhunt in
order to justify their actions and stir up fresh fears of terrorism.

Ministers
continue to insinuate that they hold further secret information
implicating Haneef, but have been asked by police not to divulge it. By
all indications, these claims will prove as worthless as the previous
ones.

More
fundamentally, the Haneef case underscores how wide the government has
set its dragnet in its “war on terror”. Anyone with even a distant
family connection to alleged terrorist activity can be implicated and
charged. In Haneef's case, his only alleged “crime” was to give an old
SIM card to a second cousin whose brother, unbeknownst to the second
cousin, was to attempt a terrorist act one year later.

Far
from backing down, Andrews has declared that the police could have
convicted Haneef if the anti-terrorism legislation had been better
drafted. “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,” the minister stated.

Andrews's
comment should sound the sharpest warning about the government's plans
to broaden the scope of its already sweeping anti-terror laws. It wants
the power to lock away people accused of the remotest link to those
charged with involvement in terrorism, no matter how slight or innocent
that involvement might be.

Advertisements

About IanPJ

Ian Parker-Joseph, former Leader of the Libertarian Party UK, who currently heads PDPS Internet Hosting and the Personal Deed Poll Services company, has been an IT industry professional for over 20 years, providing Business Consulting, Programme and Project Management, specialising in the recovery of Projects that have failed in a process driven world. Ian’s experience is not limited to the UK, and he has successfully delivered projects in the Middle East, Africa, US, Russia, Poland, France and Germany. Working within different cultures, Ian has occupied high profile roles within multi-nationals such as Nortel and Cable & Wireless. These experiences have given Ian an excellent insight into world events, and the way that they can shape our own national future. His extensive overseas experiences have made him all too aware of how the UK interacts with its near neighbours, its place in the Commonwealth, and how our nation fits into the wider world. He is determined to rebuild many of the friendships and commercial relationships with other nations that have been sadly neglected over the years, and would like to see greater energy and food security in these countries, for the benefit of all. Ian is a vocal advocate of small government, individual freedom, low taxation and a minimum of regulation. Ian believes deeply and passionately in freedom and independence in all areas of life, and is now bringing his professional experiences to bear in the world of politics.
This entry was posted in Main Page. Bookmark the permalink.