Macquarie Network ::: 2GB | 2CH | LIVENEWS | STREET CORNER | RUGBYLEAGUELIVE | WHAT CAREER | AMAZING AUSTRALIANS :::
Friday, 21 November 2008

'Killed anyone yet?': The chatroom remark that landed Haneef in hot water

16/10/2008 1:12:00 PM.  | Anil Lambert-Patel & AAP
Documents released overnight about the Mohamed Haneef terror case have revealed that federal police suspicions were aroused by a chatroom conversation in which a friend asked the doctor "if he had killed anyone yet?"

In July last year the AFP cited chatroom conversations as potential evidence against Dr Haneef, but the Indian national’s lawyers now say the remark was simply a joke, relating to his pending medical exams.

The documents, prepared just days before Dr Haneef was charged with supporting terrorists, also conceded that police had “insufficient evidence” to charge him.

Dr Haneef, who worked at the Gold Coast Hospital, was arrested in Brisbane on 2 July last year over suspected links to failed terror attacks in Britain.

The case became a hot political issue when then Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews revoked Dr Haneef's visa just hours after a magistrate granted him bail.

The case later collapsed for lack of evidence.

Yesterday, Mr Andrews gave his evidence behind closed doors and later emerged unrepentant.

"I make no apology for having made a decision in the national interest for the benefit of the people of Australia," he said.

Mr Andrews is expected to be the last high-profile person to appear before the inquiry currently underway into the case, which has also heard from former attorney-general Philip Ruddock and Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty.

COMMENTS

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Mr Andrews would have to be one of the most unimpressive people in politics for a very long time. Short on substance, seemingly devoid of intelligent rational and now unrepentant for ruining the career of an innocent man. He is a truly repugnant fellow.

Posted by: Paul Trood, Southport

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Wow Paul, you sound so smart using big words like repugnant. You love to complain don't you??? Mr Andrews used what information he had at the time when Haneef was arrested. You would be the first person up in arms asking the government why we were attack if it was to happen.

Posted by: POOR PAUL SO SAD, SYDNEY

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Paul Trood-You have given a very apt description of Kevin Rudd.Especially the bit about 'short on substance'.Good on you.

Posted by: Desmond Harris, Beacon Hill

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

So Mr. Andrews has declared that his decision was in the National interest. It smacks of Bullshit and McCarthyism. As for the AFP stating that there concern was in regard to comments that were made in a chatroom is nothing more then Cronyism. Is it not a sick joke of the medical profession where Doctors ask between themselves: "how many patients have they killed? Is this why Mr. Andrews couldn't wait to make a public announcement that there was a suspected terrorist in custody during the lead up to an election campaign. Is this why Mr. Andrews, a federal minister at the time knowingly and deliberately jeopardised any such investigation by the AFP? The Haneef affair was nothing more like a political show trial and to improve the former governments approval ratings as the authority against the bogus war on terror.

Posted by: Sean Ambrose, Helensburgh

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Hey, Doctor Haneef, come to the USA. We can use a good doctor here. Your career and rep are ruined there. So, come on over and make some serious money.

Posted by: Pithy Opiner, Stokton, California

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Yea... that's right, go to the U.S.A. where a million people are now on the supsected terrorist list.

Posted by: Peter Michaels, Sydney

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

in any sort of criminal hearing, persons can be detained for whatever requirments as applicable to the relevant law people regularly appear and are found innocent -- its splitting hair to say this case has affected his career as anyone who has been prosecuted and found innocent could make the same claim, all they might get awarded are the legal costs PERHAPS.

Posted by: allan aitchison, melbourne

Thursday, 16 October 2008

wow, ignorant reductionists are a great lot arent they?

Posted by: der kevananrdews, brisbane

Thursday, 16 October 2008

The difference is that Dr Haneef spent 11 days behind bars WITHOUT being charged. When he was charged, it was for "recklessly providing resources to a terrorist organisation" (giving his mobile phone SIM card to his second cousin who was arrested for the airport bombings). Two days later he was bailed, the same day Andrews cancelled his visa for "not being of good character" despite the fact that he had not been convicted. 11 days later the charges were dropped, but his visa was not reinstated.

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Kevin Andrews is a dill, whose only redeeming characteristics is that he looks and sounds like a dill, saving time and trouble for the casual observer. The witch hunt was purely political in character, and had the result of persecuting an innocent man, who will now rightly claim and receive damages. Andrews, Ruddock and Howard all had a grubby part to play in this farce, and each should be held accountable.

Posted by: Mick S, Central Coast

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

You conveniently forget that there were other suspicious circumstances that led to a decision to cancel his visa - Haneef hastily booked tickets to leave Australia the day after his cousin attempted to bomb civilians in the UK. Why would he flee if he had nothing to hide? He made statements to police that were known or subsequently found to be untrue which on its own is probably justification for visa cancellation.

Posted by: Dan Mac, Melbourne

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Kevin Andrews was simply shoring up the racist vote for a morally bankrupt party that was happy to imprison refugee children behind razor wire indefinitely.

Posted by: David Mulcahy, Brisbane

Thursday, 16 October 2008

hi david and cheers what you say may be true but considering all-- its humane-- i woulnt like to see these people in our prisons.it doesnt matter which party is involved the recent arrivals were detained the same way by labour who are being very fair i might add

Posted by: allan aitchison, melbourne

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Back to the KIDS in DETENTION crap again?? I guess by this, you'd have rather seen them "TAKEN" from their parents, Put in place with "STRANGERS", most likely "ignorant" to their Culture. Perhaps, we could then be " sued" for creating another " stolen generation"? Yep, REAL smart that " kids in detention" cry. You either Back the ' terrorist" theory or not. cant have it all. IMHO, it's all crap, made up to continue war and SS style policing of the nation.

Posted by: Nick Again, Maryborough

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Hey Dr Haneef, rather than heading to the US, come to lovely Singapore. Great money, excellent lifestyle but if the government here thinks that you are being naughty they will throw in jail without trial for two years (renewable indefinitely) under the Internal Security Act. Australia made a decision and should not have backed down. Many many other civilized countries are much more harsh.

Posted by: Butch Driveshaft, Harnour Front

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

My cousin is a doctor at RNSH and every time I speak to him, or see him on Facebook, the first thing I say to him is "How many people did you kill this week?!". Its just a tasteless joke. I've said it to him ever since he started doing med at uni. I wonder how much the Federal Police have on us!?

Posted by: DJ C, Baulkham Hills

Thursday, 16 October 2008

dont u worry ure pretty whitehead djc, i dont think ure being profiled.

Posted by: be alarmed, sydney

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

they should have just shot him to start with...give these lefty doogooders somthing to really complain about...

Posted by: D K, brisbane

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Scratch a rabid right winger, find a fascist. Never mind rule of law, never mind presumptions of innocence, never mind human rights, if you see someone who looks suspicious, shoot them. If you wish to live under those conditions there are, unfortunately, countries which would suit you. Perhaps you could migrate to Burma. let us hope we never have to put up with such rubbish in our great nation, Australia.

Posted by: Mick S, Central Coast

Thursday, 16 October 2008

sticks and stones wil break my bones, naming me will get me into allsorts

Posted by: soul brudda, melbourne

Thursday, 16 October 2008

>"Scratch a rabid right winger, find a fascist" well put! an important observation, a great quote.

Posted by: firstname surname, brisbane

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

He looks like a terrorist, shouldn't that be enough? These comments were just icing on the cake. Justice prevals.

Posted by: Roger Aikin, Newtown

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

D K, brisbane. You and your Nazi mates Howard and Andrews need a taste of your own medicine. And so brave of you not signing your name. You would wet yourself if anyone ever confronted you.

Posted by: Graeme Henderson, Darling Downs

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Yeah i have med student friends who i ask the same thing. who is monitoring these conversations and thinking that is something to be alarmed about?

Posted by: D A, Adelaide

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

Ok, even if there wasn't sufficient evidence to deport the guy, did the inconvenience he suffered really warrant the millions in compensation he'll no doubt be paid by a falling-over-itself-to-look-holy-Rudd-Government?

Posted by: Paul Neri, Canberra

Thursday, 16 October 2008

I don't know that he will get millions (I hope he doesn't)- but i do think he should get something. These laws have gone too far. We cannot be judged by our stupid relatives, or the colour of our skin, or the god we choose to pray to. And i am really sick and tired of arrogant lying politicians (from any party) abusing their power to do whatever the hell they want to do. Andrews behaviour in this was disgusting, he had no legal right to cancel that VISA, but he did it anyway!

Posted by: Concerned Liberal, Minto

 

Thursday, 16 October 2008

I get sick and tired of all these people, trying to defend a suspect. He was a friend of the terrorists,and the federal police were doing their job,as far as protecting the people of Australia. I served 9 years in the military, and the civilians, just don't see what really is out there, that threatens Australia. He was on a Visa For gods sake,not a Naturalized Australian, Well done Federal Police,for doing their JOB PROPERLY. Protecting Australia.

Posted by: adrian small, geelong

 

Friday, 17 October 2008

Personally speaking,his "doctor" friends who tried to kill and maim at Glasgow Airport, should have been "executed" for what they tried to do. As for Haneef, or anyone else for that matter, the "evidence" against them, has to be totally conclusive, and NOT, speculative ! That way, we can convict ! I We NEED our Governments to get it right, not for their sakes, but for ours ! We were lucky at Glasgow Airport that day,but "luck" usually runs out !

Posted by: Jock McTaggart, Glasgow

 

Friday, 17 October 2008

Andrews may have acted hastily, and caused Haneef some inconvenience, but no innocent Australians were hurt as a result.In any war there are innocent victims and, without calling Haneef innocent, he is a victim of a war which includes some of his relatives. A fistful of dollars will completely restore his health. One point not mentioned previously is a simple fact; he has not been proven innocent.

Posted by: Stephen Bailey, Blacktown

Friday, 17 October 2008

Nobody is ever "proven innocent", there is no such legal definition available. The case collapsed because there was NO EVIDENCE. Your curious concept of "not been proven innocent" does however have an appropriate ring for a show trial, one used to whip up hysteria, one designed for political purposes. The people who are really not innocent in this sorry saga are Andrews, Ruddock and Howard.

Posted by: Mick S, Central Coast

Friday, 17 October 2008

You dont have to be proved innocent if charges are not laid or withdrawn.The AFP have previously issued a statement clearing Haneef of any further investigation.Get with the script and watch us taxpayers fork out the cash.

Posted by: Lance Freestone,

 

Friday, 17 October 2008

In Scotland, we have "Three" verdicts , Guilty,Not Guilty, and Not Proven. The latter being, "not been proven innocent, but not convinced enough of their innocence " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_proven

Posted by: Jock McTaggart,

Friday, 17 October 2008

Jock, yes I am aware of those possible verdicts in Scotland, but no insufficient about its working to comment further. However, in this particular case, there was no verdict at all, as their was no trial. In the end, the prosecution did not proceed with the case, in recognition of the fact that they would have no hope of a conviction as there was no evidence of any wrongdoing by Haneef. The only wrongdoing, unfortunately, was by Andrews, Ruddock and Howard.

Posted by: Mick S, Central Coast

 

Saturday, 08 November 2008

thank you guys for doing what you do best. my mom was telling me the other day watch what sites i get on and dont click on any pop ups because people like him come and try to hurt little girls and she was right. i thank you again and i wish you could catch all of the bad people and send them to prison for life . i thank you for proteckting us. sincerlly samantha t feeley

Posted by: samantha feeley, suffolk

 
 

YOUR SAY