Haneef - Should He Be Allowed Back ?

[Turbo6man]

Absolutely ridiculous statement.

The laws of the land that are in place are to protect you and I and our families and friends and everyone else who does the right thing.

If the Feds want to crawl all over some guy becuase in their eyes they have "probable cause", good luck to them.

The absolute last thing we ever want to see in this country is a f*cking plane flying too low over a capital city.

I tell you what. I dont get hassled by the Police, the Feds, ASIO, ATO, drug dealers, gangsters, pimps or anyone else.

Why, because I got nothing to hide.

People only look at you if there is a reason too.

We live in one of the safest countries on the planet. I dont know how you cant appreciate that.

You are very naive ... that is probably an "age" thing. As you grow older and "wiser" you will see changes that I have seen occur over time. Changes to basic civil liberties. Changes to basic civil rights. Changes to the most basic of all legal tenements - innocent until proven quilty by a court.

If you think for one second that you are innocent until proven quilty by a court then just try this simple experiment ... find a fixed or mobile radar unit and drive past it deliberatly accelerating very hard until you reach a speed of at least 45km/h above the posted limit, then brake very hard to the speed limit ... now, as you and everyone on the planet knows the radar will not be able to "lock" onto your vehicle under these circumstances. So the HWP officers will have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to bring any driving charges against you based on the radar reading. YA THINK? I'll tell you what will happen - they will "choose" the highest reading that flashes up on the screen (even though it doesn't lock) and, based on that, they will confiscate your licence on the spot. You be also be automatically disqualified from driving for 6 months. You will not be given the opportunity to defend the charge (disqualification) in court because the penalty (loss of licence) starts right there and then. You will not be given the opportunity to bring into question the accuracy of the radar. The "law" just accepts without qualification that what the officer says he sees on the radar is accurate and you have no rights at all to plead for your licence. Innocent until proven guilty? Yeah, right!

PS. I don't really want you to do the experiment - not worth losing your licence to prove me right.

[sixfan]

I'd shy from the term "police state" but Nanny state seems very appropriate,

this time last year I used to drive the Stuart Hwy at speeds well over 200 kph,

the cops would wave as they went past, (on their way to do something important, no doubt)

Now I have to do the limit determined safe by some dude in a Melbourne Uni,

I need a licence to fish Aboriginal waters and I'm not supposed to enjoy a cool beer while I do it.

I have to fence my pool, trim my fire breaks and wash my hands after having a pi$$.

The government should get the F outa my life and get back to running this country.

threat from terrorists....PLEASE!! you've got more chance of being hit by lightning, stacking your car,

or drowning in your own vomit than getting blown up by terrorists.

[Flukey]

You are very naive ... that is probably an "age" thing. As you grow older and "wiser" you will see changes that I have seen occur over time. Changes to basic civil liberties. Changes to basic civil rights. Changes to the most basic of all legal tenements - innocent until proven quilty by a court.

If you think for one second that you are innocent until proven quilty by a court then just try this simple experiment ... find a fixed or mobile radar unit and drive past it deliberatly accelerating very hard until you reach a speed of at least 45km/h above the posted limit, then brake very hard to the speed limit ... now, as you and everyone on the planet knows the radar will not be able to "lock" onto your vehicle under these circumstances. So the HWP officers will have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to bring any driving charges against you based on the radar reading. YA THINK? I'll tell you what will happen - they will "choose" the highest reading that flashes up on the screen (even though it doesn't lock) and, based on that, they will confiscate your licence on the spot. You be also be automatically disqualified from driving for 6 months. You will not be given the opportunity to defend the charge (disqualification) in court because the penalty (loss of licence) starts right there and then. You will not be given the opportunity to bring into question the accuracy of the radar. The "law" just accepts without qualification that what the officer says he sees on the radar is accurate and you have no rights at all to plead for your licence. Innocent until proven guilty? Yeah, right!

PS. I don't really want you to do the experiment - not worth losing your licence to prove me right.

First of all, I am 43.

Secondly, I am not interested in testing your conspiracy theories regarding radars. What has that got to do with Zap's topic?

[Flukey]

threat from terrorists....PLEASE!! you've got more chance of being hit by lightning, stacking your car,

or drowning in your own vomit than getting blown up by terrorists.

Sixfan, I have no idea if terrorism is a real threat in this country or not. Your statement above is probably correct, and moreso where you live.

I spent 3 days at a security conference a few weeks back where many of the keynote speakers were terrorism experts. I have also spent considerable time at similiar conferences over the last few years as part of my employment responsibilities.

All I can say is this:

The government believes the risk is real

Major Australian organisations believe the risk is real

The so called "experts" believe the risk is real.

[bart]

Do any of u terrorists sceptics actually no if there is or isant a terrorist threat? or is this simply an assumption that u have made up.Did the us think it was a target b4 9/11. I think that there has to be some level of prevention, and the threat must be there for a govt to spend countless millions on intelligence and anti terrorists activities. Be good if someone on here worked for asio, but even then we wouldnt get a difinitive answer, why, because u really think this organisation which shares info with the us and european intelligence organisations would tell us everything they know, please, but everyone is entitled to an opinion, and live there lives how they wish

Edited 02/08/07 03:29 PM by bart

[nang3]

I cant think of any reason why there wouldnt be a terrorist threat here in australia - they've already targeted aussies in Bali, at known aussie tourist hangouts!!

I can still picture that smiling Amrozi bali bomber f*ckface, so smug and proud of himself for murdering so many westerners.. what I wouldnt do for 10 minutes alone with that f*ckass!!!!

In my opinion there is a very real threat for as long as these uneducated lower life form sh*tbags exist out there.

How can a rational intelligent human being somehow interpret passages in a religious book into murdering innocent men, women and children to fulfill some jihad bullsh*t...

Anyone just needs to see the cell phone footage of that 17yr old girl stoned to death to realise what mindless animals religion can cause some people to turn into.

That was one of the worst and saddest things ive seen on the net, and these guys weren't even terrorists, just everyday religious zealots and her dad as well !! f*cking animals IMO !!!

Im not blaming or accusing muslims or followers of Islam, as we all know that they are not all terrorists, but it seems 99% of modern day terrorists are followers of Islam or some derivative of it anyway, so I can understand how middle eastern looking/Islamic followers are targeted by security agents.

I'd expect the same if I was living in a middle eastern country where westerners routinely attempted to massacre innocent middle eastern people.

[ritzy]

I spent 3 days at a security conference a few weeks back where many of the keynote speakers were terrorism experts. I have also spent considerable time at similiar conferences over the last few years as part of my employment responsibilities.

All I can say is this:

The government believes the risk is real

Major Australian organisations believe the risk is real

The so called "experts" believe the risk is real.

More self proclaimed experts.

[JimmyXR6T04]

I'll say it again... I'd rather the government act the way it has with the Haneef case, rather then wait till an attack does occur.

Unfortunately, it's either one way or the other... what's the point of catching a terrorist after they've blown 30-40-50 maybe 100s of people up? Unfortunately, in this day and age, an attack could happen anywhere, anytime.

IF the AFP has a reasonable belief that some one is a terrorist, or linked to a terrorist organisation, wouldn't it be better to detain, question and get all the info out of them, then have the chance of releasing them later. Rather then leave it too late and have an attack, and ruin the lives of 100s..

Unfortunately investigations don't always go exactly to plan, but it doesn't mean that there wasn't a need for the investigation.

[bart]

anyone on here who has had a first hand experience with terrorissm I am sure would support the afp actions. I was in bali for the second attacks, and was behind the matahari which was bombed, and it was scary, and I never wanna go through something like that again. Whats worse was seeing all the young kids and families from australia, who had lost parents and friends, I was devestated from seeing this. I would rather something like haneef happen that seeing this happen in australia, and anyone who has seen terrorism first hand would agree, IMO

[XR06T]

in all honesty it has just been a media circus..

and aren't the courts and law makers supposed to be independant of each other? pollies giving running commentary and opinions on these things isn't right.

im not sure that we will ever be able to sift through all the bs surrounding this case and get an honest answer to the vital questions.