Twisty, twisty

Sometimes you can hear Sheridan think. In the case of Dr Haneef he's written a detailed defense of....Oh... go on...... guess:

'If any part of our system has performed badly here, it is the courts for refusing to implement the intention of the legislation, which is that bail should be rare in terrorism cases. This judgment of the legislature is shared by Howard and Rudd. So is the civil liberties section of the legal profession telling us not only that they are well motivated, whereas the politicians are malevolently motivated, but that they, the lawyers, understand the threat of terrorism better than the political system understands it?'

I'd say that in this case the lawyers understand the law better than the 'political system' understands it. As far as I'm aware, bail in a terrorism case is able to be granted in exceptional circumstances. Well I'd call a fundamental lack of evidence pretty exceptional, as did the magistrate when she noted that no evidence was provided that implicated Haneef with a terrorist act. But that doesn't matter to Sheridan:

'These included that Haneef was charged with a serious crime and was a known associate of people Andrews had reason to believe were engaged in criminal activity. There were also reasons Andrews could not disclose, but we know that these involved AFP investigations that showed Haneef was in frequent and elaborate contact with people at the centre of the British terrorism investigations. There is other material that, despite the best efforts of a robust media, we have not yet found out.'

So he was charged with 'recklessly' giving his SIM to his second cousin because it still had credit, though there's no evidence this SIM was used, or intended for use, in a criminal act. He 'was a known associate' of people 'Andrews had reason to believe were engaged in criminal activity'. In other words he's known to have known his second cousin who may have been involved in a crime. There's also some other unreleased 'reasons' that we'll have to just take Andrew's word for, but we know he kept in 'frequent and elaborate' contact with his second cousin, the last such time being after the birth of his child and prior to that in March or April.

As you can see, the case is open and shut.

Thankfully Mike Steketee talked some sense:

'When AFP Commissioner Mick Keelty announced on Saturday that Haneef had been charged with providing resources to a terrorist group, he said: "The specific allegation regards recklessness rather than intention, the allegation being that he was reckless about some of the support he provided to that group (in Britain), in particular the provision of his SIM card for the use of the group." In other words, the allegation against Haneef is that he didn't know but should have known that he was dealing with terrorists.'

'Even if you accept that, the resources that he provided were not bomb components or a suicide vest: it was a British SIM card, left behind when he came to Australia.
The group or organisation mentioned in the charge refers to brothers Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed, who are Haneef's second cousins and two of the suspects in Britain. Haneef effectively stands accused of failing to be his cousins' keeper, a notion that should frighten relatives everywhere.

One of the documents used by Andrews says that Haneef and one of the brothers corresponded in online chat rooms, most recently "following the birth of Haneef's child" on June 26. The previous occasion had been in March or April. That hardly suggests active involvement in a terrorist plot.

As reported on Tuesday, Cameron Stewart of this newspaper was told there had been more frequent contacts. Keim says police did not put this to Haneef in interviews. "There can be no operational reasons to keep it secret," he says. "Why would you keep secret evidence that you have showing that there are greater links between the two brothers and the cousin when all of them are in custody?"

Keim also points out that when Haneef tried to leave the country, he was travelling in his own name and he was going to Bangalore, where his wife and newborn child live.

The Andrews documents add that he informed his employer at Southport Hospital where he was going. Even if the timing of his departure raises suspicions, his actions were hardly those of a person desperate to avoid detection.

As Donald Rumsfeld once famously put it, perhaps there are things we don't know we don't know. Haneef's lawyers are appealing to the Federal Court against Andrews's decision and the Government has the option of providing further information. Although this opens up an avenue of independent review, it is on the narrow grounds of whether Haneef passes the character test under the Migration Act. The court will not rule on whether he should have received bail on a criminal charge, let alone on the merits of the charge against him.

So far, the prosecution has constructed a case based on guilt by association. As we learned in the McCarthy era, when many innocent people were smeared as communists, that is a slippery slope. Sometimes democracy does not provide an adequate safeguard against sliding down it, as Kevin Rudd's unwillingness to say boo about any aspect of the handling of this case demonstrates.