Thursday, 25 December 2008

Dr Mohammed Haneef and the anti-terrorist laws




Finally, what was obvious to most –even without an inquiry- has been confirmed.

The unholy alliance of the Howard government, Australian Federal Police (AFP), Queensland Police, DPP, Immigration Department, and even ASIO, gave us another clear example of the real reasons for the “anti-terrorism” laws.

They fabricated a terrorist in Australia for cynical political purposes and to justify the existence of these laws.

The case against Mohamed Haneef case have been quashed by the Clarke’s inquiry, who confirmed that all the “evidence” in this case were lies, half truths and flawed interpretation. All justified with the usual clichés of the corrupt “none told me” and “everything we did was to defend Australia”.

As with the weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the “terrorist doctor” in Australia never existed.

The paradox is, with the destruction of Dr Haneef life, what little credibility of Keelty and the AFP, John Howard, Kevin Andrews, Philip Ruddock and all others involved in the case had, was also destroyed.

Raul Bassi, from the Canterbury Bankstown Peace Group (CBPG), said: “This disaster only could happen under the draconian antiterrorist laws brought by the former Howard government with the support of the ALP. This explains also, why the Rudd government fell short of supporting a proper inquiry into this case. Justifying the former government actions, defending Keelty and the AFP despite of obvious wrongdoings and finally, failing to offer Dr Haneef an apology and the compensation he clearly deserves”.

“What credibility”, Bassi added, “exist then in the other supposed terrorist cases? What was the real role of this alliance in the kidnap, rendition and incarceration in Guantanamo Bay of Mamdouh Habib? What was their role in the David Hicks ordeal? How can we be sure that the Goulburn 9 case is not based in the same pack of lies and mistakes?

The only way to stops another Haneef case is getting rid of these laws and review all the trials under these laws, past and present. If there is any reason to charge the convicted or the still accused, do it under the common law.

On this matter, the CBPG is promoting a national petition to be presented to the Senate Review Committee next year, demanding the repeal of these laws. The CBPG is calling also, for a judicial inquiry on the Mamdouh Habib and David Hicks cases, to know definitely the true role of the former government and the “intelligence” organizations in their ordeals.

For more information contact Raul Bassi at 0403037376.


Alexis, Baron von Harlot said...

In my family we call Ruddock "Pillock Buttock". Our hearts are in the right place, even if our methods are a little immature.

Red Wombat said...

In our family, we are ever so slightly nastier and pointed in our critique.

I'm sure "Phillip Goebels" isn't one of Rudock's school-days nicknames...