It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Govt defends counter-terrorism laws

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:54 PM

Govt defends counter-terrorism laws

The Federal Government is defending the laws used to hold the Gold Coast-based doctor Mohammed Haneef since his arrest earlier this month.

Yesterday the 27-year-old was charged under new Australian counter-terrorism laws for "recklessly providing" his mobile phone SIM card to people planning car bomb attacks in the UK.

They have denied that he had any intention of providing support for a terrorist act when he gave away his mobile phone SIM card.

Haneef's younger brother,...
(visit the link for the full news article)

Mod Edit: Removed copy/paste over the 500 character limit.

[edit on 14-7-2007 by UM_Gazz]

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:54 PM
Well, be careful who you give your old phone to. Or for that matter, be careful whom you allow to use your phone.

It took the AFP nearly 2 weeks to finally charge him with something and now this is the charge?
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 14-7-2007 by NJE777]

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 10:55 PM
Wow lol I have to laugh.....
Thats about the saddest thing Ive heard all day.

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:00 PM
As I read this, I shuddered at the thought of how many of my old phones I have given away and just last year, when my old employer updated the mobiles for the workers, he gave them to me (sim included) and I gave them to anyone who needed a phone.

wow, perhaps that means I have been reckless?

Prosecutors conceded the offence was perhaps at the margins but by no means insignificant, with a maximum penalty of 15 years' jail.

"The specific allegation involves recklessness rather than intention," Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty said.


[edit on 14-7-2007 by NJE777]

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:03 PM
Question -

Why would a Doctor working in Australia give his mobile SIM card to a fellow Doctor located in the UK even if the card did have free time on it????? I understand 'our guest' has been here for sometime.

I am prepared to wait to see what happens here.

Only thing that intrigues me is this - the card was found in the car (which is what has been stated) that went up in flames in Glasgow. The vehicle in question appeared to be was burnt out. So, was the card found in one of the phones that was being carried by one of the suspects who got out of the vehicle? Back to my original point.....

posted on Jul, 14 2007 @ 11:14 PM
Do you know where we in America get the expression for someone who is defamed totally by saying their name is 'Mudd"?

The doctor who many hours after the fact treated John Wilkes Boothe for a broken leg, due to his jumping from the balcony at Ford's Theater after he shot Abraham Lincoln, was Samual Mudd.

There is every indication that Dr. Mudd never had a clue about the assassination plot, and may not have been aware of it happening at the time he treated Boothe. He was a doctor, and someone came to him, so he did what doctors do and fixed him up.

Yet he was "guilty" in the eyes of the press and most people for his action. He was sentenced to life in prison.

Also another person, the woman who ran the boarding house where Boothe stayed for a time was hanged on just as flimsy of evidence.

This is a practice of courts and law enforcement here for some time in the US.

posted on Jul, 17 2007 @ 06:10 AM
*** This is generating a lot of debate in Australia ***
**********And rightly So!*************
Comments Section


A magistrate grants bail and then the Govt overrides the process.

Here we see the Govt disregarding the Separation of Powers Doctrine. Why do we even have the Judiciary?

The magistrate also said there was no evidence the SIM card was actually used in a terrorist attack.

Taking into account that Dr Haneef had surrendered his Indian passport, Ms Payne allowed bail on condition he provide a $10,000 surety and report to police three times a week.

Prosecutors had opposed bail on the grounds Dr Haneef was likely to flee the country, even though he had surrendered his passport.


And now here we see the Immigration Minister being the Judge and Jury:

IMMIGRATION Minister Kevin Andrews used the character test contained in Section 501 of the Migration Act to cancel Mohamed Haneef's visa.

Under the Act, a person fails the character test if they have had an association with a person reasonably suspected of criminal activity.

This is separate to the criminal charges against Dr Haneef of recklessly supporting a terrorist organisation.

"Today I've exercised my powers under the Migration Act to cancel the visa of Dr Mohamed Haneef," Mr Andrews said yesterday. "Based on information and advice I've received from the Australian Federal Police, I reasonably suspect Dr Haneef has had an association with persons involved in criminal conduct, namely terrorism."

Source 2

MINISTER Kevin Andrews' decision to revoke terror suspect Mohamed Haneef's visa prompted outrage in much of the legal community.

This is a glaring abuse of justice system:

IF there were any doubts about a flagrant abuse of the criminal justice system, a trampling of human rights and ugly pre-election opportunism by the Howard Government in its handling of Mohamed Haneef's case, proof positive was provided by Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews yesterday.

Human Rights is dependent upon the Judicial Process and this latest development is a very shameful example of abuse of an Individual's rights.

It is possible Haneef would have remained in indefinite custody if the lack of evidence against him had not been exposed last week. The report in The Australian forced the AFP to put up or shut up.


In the meantime, a respected medical practitioner, whom Prime Minister John Howard has repeatedly stressed deserved the presumption of innocence, is to be caged like a criminal in the Villawood Detention Centre.

Haneef has already had a fortnight of worldwide vilification and police custody without charge, amid exhaustive Australian Federal Police investigations.

Brisbane magistrate Jacqui Payne ruled in Haneef's favour in a bail application that had turned on matters including the exceptional weakness of the AFP case

Absolutely shameful...

[edit on 17-7-2007 by NJE777]

new topics

top topics


log in