Crikey baits the Chief Minister

Outsource his care to Guantanamo…

the problem is that you need either complete civil liberties or none at all.. I dont care what it is but trying to have it both ways blurs lines.

ps borders are as dangerous (if not worse) than religion.

Thank you Ralph. PJ O’Rourke said (and I paraphrase) “Constrain personal or economic liberty and you take a Maoist great leap forward. Constrain both and you become Mao himself”.

Yes you are right, I draw the line with other libertarians when they start talking about open borders and liberal justice.

Ralph loves to sell himself as a libertarian, but seems to take a very anti-libertarian view of justice. I think it was Franklin who made pertinent comment about trading off liberty for security. Once again – are you sure you’re not trolling Ralph. Just cause we’re law abiding, it won’t stop your friends or colleagues from doing something dodgy (as Mael mentioned). Then there’s the inevitable cases of mistaken identity. Fancy being mistaken for Ralph Bin Laden and spending a few very uncomfortable weeks in a cell? I don’t.

Regardless, in order to prove that Dr Haneef has engaged in a criminal act, they have to prove that he gave the SIM card to the mob of dickheads in the UK all those months ago for the express purpose of committing a terrorist act. Unless they have some VERY compelling evidence (the sort a Magistrate would, say, allow them to keep him in custody), I would suggest that they keep whistling if they think that will stand up in court.

No point sobbing shab about impingement of civil liberties etc from these terror laws. You and I as law abiding citizens should never have to worry about our civil rights being eroded and being locked up for 48 hours

Isnt that the whole point. It has not been proven that this guy has broken any laws. The AFP case was that he recklessly supplied a sim card. The magistrate who approved bail said there wasn’t any evidence that he knew that his cousins friend was a terrorist.

Good points Mr Shab – finding out that he gave them the phone on his departure from the UK 11 months before the attack did swing my opinion around on this matter.

Treating terrorist acts as anything other than the crimes that they are (covered largely under the legal system prior to 911) seems a much more sensible approach to this problem.

The Brits did it for decades with the IRA – it puts it into context and strips the act of the politics it wishes for by simply saying “this is a criminal act, you are a criminal”.

Unlimited detention (by loopholes meaning that the questioning period doesn’t have to be consecutive) seems very iffy to me.

I’m working with a heap of Lawyers who are watching this case with interest.

Think about it; A lawyer knows murderers, thieves and even terrorists in the course of their routine day to day duties, as do most trades involving the process of crime.

This case draws the line firmly in the sand – if you even remotely know somebody that conducts a terrorist act, your liberties are going to be denied.

Heaven forbid if JB decides to blow up the Kiama RSL, I’ll talk to you about the merits of civil liberties in the cell beside you Ralph.

Given that they charged him with providing a SIM card to terrorists that was later used in a fairly inept attack, I can’t help but feel they’re grasping.

So that makes it ok does it? The intention was there to maim and kill the innocent.

There are any number of very reasonable excuses for giving a SIM card to rellies, especially when leaving the country.

In this case his rellies happen to be a bunch of islamic extremists, so it’s a bit different really isn’t it shab? Indeed it is.

The Feds are going to have the devil’s own time proving intent. They may prove links or even sympathy for the act, but unless they can prove he gave them the card for the express purpose of committing a terrorist act, it’ll fall over in court very quickly.

We will see about that. Personally I prefer the comfort of knowing that the Government is doing all it can to crack down on Islamic extremeists.
Either way this is sending a signal to any other radical Muslims thinking of doing something similar.

Let’s make an example of this bastard and lock him up for as long as it takes.

No point sobbing shab about impingement of civil liberties etc from these terror laws. You and I as law abiding citizens should never have to worry about our civil rights being eroded and being locked up for 48 hours; unless you’re thinking of strapping a bomb to yourself and heading over to Westfield.

Personally I’m happy to surrender some civil freedoms (which as a law abiding citizen will never be violated) if it involes clamping doing on militant Islamics.

If they do have more on him, then let them say so – even if it’s just “we have strong circumstantial evidence that Dr Haneef has links to terrorist organisations, but need more time to gather the evidence proper. We can’t release specifics because we don’t want to prejudice the case”, rather than the stony silence we’ve got.

Given that they charged him with providing a SIM card to terrorists that was later used in a fairly inept attack, I can’t help but feel they’re grasping. There are any number of very reasonable excuses for giving a SIM card to rellies, especially when leaving the country. When I left the UK after a stint over there, I gave my mobile away to a friend because it wouldn’t work if I had brought it back home.

The Feds are going to have the devil’s own time proving intent. They may prove links or even sympathy for the act, but unless they can prove he gave them the card for the express purpose of committing a terrorist act, it’ll fall over in court very quickly. If they can’t, it’s just a thought crime and not (yet) illegal.

Regardless of this, the thought of indefinite detention without charge still makes me leery as hell.

Does that make me a Soviet?