Haneef So Far

This story has been incredible so far. Let's go through the events and false claims, let me know if I've missed any.

1) Haneef's arrested apparently fleeing the country with a one way ticket without informing his place of work.

False. He did inform his work after all and gave the completely acceptable explanation that his wife had just given birth and he wanted to see his family. His father had booked the one way ticket as well, and this was after Haneef had called police in Britain to explain why they had his SIM.

2) His SIM was found in the car which crashed into Glasgow airport. The accusation was hence made that the SIM was intended to trigger a bomb.

False. The SIM was found in his cousins apartment with the person Haneef admitted giving it to. He had also explained that the reason he gave the SIM to his cousin was because it was still active and he did not want to waste it. Also, it appears there's no evidence that it was at all intended for use in the attack, let alone Haneef actually being aware of this possibility.

3) Police made the claim that Haneef used to live with his two second cousins in England.

False. As Haneef had informed them in the interview he had never lived with the two men.

4) The Murdoch tabloids splashed all over their front covers that Haneef was surveying a possible target on the Gold Coast. Pictures of buildings foundations were found etc....

False. As Keelty informed everyone yesterday this accusation is wrong.

5) Police claimed that Haneef had Kafeel Ahmed's details in his diary and asked Haneef the hand writing was his own.

False. The hand writing wasn't his and neither were Kafeels details in his diary. Keelty has recently come out to deny that police had written in the diary which makes it an odd exchange. I can't for the life of me grasp what that conversation means given this denial.

Haneef may be guilty of something, but this episode so far is just ridiculous. It surely isn't instilling faith from the public in the AFP or our new terror laws. Gerard Henderson attempts explain it all:

' The events which took place in Britain are of utmost seriousness. There could have been many hundreds or thousands died as a result of those attacks, which didn't succeed.
At a time of acute awareness about national security both in Britain and also to some extent in Australia, it's not unreasonable that the federal police should act cautiously in relation to these matters, should put someone up on trial, they have to produce the evidence. This is not unusual. In the criminal jurisdiction, these matters go on every day. There are people being put away tonight, against whom there is some evidence and some disputed evidence, they'll go up on trial, have a bail application. There's nothing unusual about Mohamed Haneef, except he's created a lot of media attention. '

Also except he was granted bail then had his visa revoked as a consequence but other than that he might be right. A good explanation for this circus was given by Waleed Aly today:

'Only last week, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock neatly encapsulated this democratic impulse when interrogated about the fairness of Haneef's treatment, responding: "You would be asking me different types of questions if we found out later that there were avenues of inquiry that could have been pursued ... and some terrible event happened in Australia."
Ruddock is undoubtedly correct, which only demonstrates that it is politically safer in the face of a terror threat for a democratic government to overreact, even if it is strategically unwise. Even the Opposition is hamstrung, and supports the Government's conduct at every turn. It wouldn't dare do anything else.
Western politicians assure us of their toughness on terror. They have little choice. It is harder in a democracy to show strategic restraint. If only politicians were rewarded for being smart on terror. '