Crossposted on Larvatus Prodeo, where each of the previous Haneef threads has generated hundreds of comments.
Much was made yesterday of claims that Indian police believe that there are links between Haneef and extreme jihadists. To kick this thread off, from The Hindu (Online edition of India’s National Newspaper):
Meanwhile, reports in a section of the Australian media that a dossier prepared by the Bangalore police on Mohammed Haneef on his alleged links with the Al-Qaeda have come as a surprise to the police here.
Bangalore Police Commissioner Neelam Achuta Rao told The”‚Hindu on Wednesday that they had not prepared any such dossier.
So where has the alleged Haneef dossier actually come from?
Secondly, Haneef’s legal team are waiting until their appeal against his visa revocation comes before the courts to fully discuss statements released by Kevin Andrews from an alleged chatroom transcript (a chat which Andrews belatedly acknowledged was conducted in Urdu and which he refuses to release in its original form for scrutiny by other translators):
Speaking at a press conference here on Wednesday, Dr. Haneef, who was released by the Australian authorities after 27 days of incarceration in connection with the botched Glasgow airport bombing, disclosed that the Australian police had questioned him on the chat transcripts during the second recorded interrogation with them. “They have just [quoted] a few lines from the chat, and it is not a full chat. Once you get the whole chat you would be able to understand what it is.”
When asked if it had been used out of the context, he said: “My lawyer has advised me not to make any direct comments or allegations until the visa matter is finalised before the Australian court and any comment should come from the legal team.” His wife’s relative, Imran Siddiqui, added: “After we received a few comments, lawyer Peter Russo is working on to finalise an affidavit.”
Mr. Siddiqui said:
“He [Dr. Haneef] did chat with his brother on a regular basis. This transcript which we are talking about and the issue that Kevin Andrews is speaking [will] be discussed in court. The legal team does not want us to comment on them because they feel that will affect their arguments on August 8 “¦ The transcript is not classified information. Now we are [asking them for] the complete second transcript “¦ Once outside the court, the second transcript becomes a public document and we can comment on it.”
Then there’s the Mick Keelty gaffe:
Mr Keelty’s confusion over the SIM card, and his new warning that Dr Haneef could again be charged, drew an angry response from Queensland Premier Peter Beattie, who said it was imperative for a national inquiry to resolve the saga.
Mr Beattie told The Australian last night he was “amazed” at Mr Keelty’s latest comments. “I can’t understand why, if that’s true, they let him leave the country,” Mr Beattie said when asked about Mr Keelty’s comments that a prosecution could still ensue.
Beattie also called for the release of the chatroom transcripts in full and in the original Urdu for the sake of transparency. He’s not alone in wanting that.
Categories: culture wars, law & order, Politics
The second transcript has been released and Kevin Andrews once again has egg on his face. What his assertions and leaks showed has been fully countered by getting the full transcript. Now we are supposed to believe that Andrews’ and Federal Police interpretation of further “secret” information is more accurately understood than all their previous now revealed sources were. My experience of secret files held by authorities in Australia about local activists during the Vietnam war years, is that such information was actually laughable in how far from the truth they were about people I actually knew.
After Labour wins a landslide at the next Federal election I would support inquiries into all the misrepresentations of the truth by the the Minister, the Federal police and others including John Howard. NO Government should ever again be allowed to target and prejudge individuals because of their religion, ethnicity or extended family in an attempt to polarise the Australian public as elections are approaching. The Tampa (“children overboard” lies) and the Dr Haneef cases should be a warning to us not to go down that road ever again.
I hope anyone guilty of making prejudicial immigration decisions for political reasons will get their just deserts in court one day.