Sack Keelty

Aug 30, 2008 | Australian Values, Border Security, Citizenship, Corruption, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

Sack Keelty

 

Sack the Bastard

 

…and DIC Senior Management, particularly the Deputy Secretary in charge of borders, compliance, and detention, the avowed expert in the use of the visa as a tool for enforcing (at the time) Liberal Party policy. Yes, it’s our old friend, Bob Correll who, outed himself on LinkedIn as a big supporter of the LNP; (not sort of ‘correct’ for a public servant?).

And sack Andrews and Ruddock from Parliament.
Sack them all for Misfeasance. Malfeasance. Non-feasance. Abuse of power by a public official. Criminal stupidity. Any of those will do.

Federal Police yesterday released a statement saying the former Gold Coast doctor [Haneef] is no longer a person of interest to them, and they have found there are no grounds to proceed against him. [SBS News]

Well fuck me dead – I’m Foreskin Fred!

Yes, after all this time. After all the waste. After all the harm. After all the stupidity and incompetence. After Scotland Yard laughed at the AFP; months after the Queensland Police Service and ASIO both said there were no grounds. After all the subversion of democracy, the courts and the rule of law.

Sack them.

Everything about the carriage of the Haneef affair by the AFP and the government suggests that it never was about public safety; that it always was a political stunt; that it was in fact a considered and calculated decision by the AFP to use the Haneef matter for political ends. As we know from another case, the AFP sought every possible opportunity to test the envelope of the terrorism laws.

Keelty, in particular, clearly operates a political agenda, having capitulated under pressure from John Howard years ago. He learned his lesson well and in the Haneef case hung his hat on the re-election of the Howard government. This means that he has lost sight of his actual role, his constitutional – and certainly his moral – obligation to the people of Australia and the democracy they own.

And so we say in the alleged words of Lawson, the Bastard’s curse:

“ May the itching piles torment you, may corns grow on your feet,
May crabs as big as spiders attack your balls a treat.
Then, when you’re down and out, and a hopeless bloody wreck,
May you slip back through your arsehole, and break your bloody neck.”

Keelty Must Go At Last

Jul 30, 2008 | Australian Values, Corruption, Democracy, Immigration, OzPol Values, Values

Keelty Must Go At Last

 

Howard’s last ditch: a failure called Keelty 

 

We wish to note the news this week that:

“ ASIO has revealed it “consistently” advised the Howard government it had no evidence connecting Mohamed Haneef to a British terrorist plot, days before the government stripped the Indian doctor of his visa.

In a damning submission to the Clarke inquiry into the handling of the case, the head of the country’s main intelligence agency said it told the government there were no grounds to believe Dr Haneef was linked to, or even knew about, the botched June car bombings. It raises questions about the actions of the then immigration minister, Kevin Andrews, who cancelled the doctor’s visa, and of the Australian Federal Police Commissioner, Mick Keelty, who has declared there were grounds to treat Dr Haneef as a security risk.

This was on top of similar advice to the AFP nearly three weeks ago:

“ The Queensland Police Service says it told Australia Federal Police (AFP) officers last year there was not enough evidence to charge Dr Mohamed Haneef with supporting a terrorist organisation.

There is now no doubt at all, if there ever was any, that the Haneef affair was Howard’s last ditch attempt at a Tampa Overboard for the 2007 election, aided and abetted by his lapdog, AFP Commissioner Keelty, and the Joke, Kevin Andrews.

More recently,

“ A senior counter-terrorism officer with the Australian Federal Police…testified that police were directed to charge “as many suspects as possible” with terrorism offences in order to test the new anti-terrorism laws introduced in 2003…”At the time we were directed, we were informed, to lay as many charges under the new terrorist legislation against as many suspects as possible because we wanted to use the new legislation,” Mr Lam Paktsun testified.

An AFP spokesperson was asked whether the ASIO statement made Keelty’s position untenable.

The answer is ‘Yes’.

As we said here last November,

“ can there any longer possibly be any question that the appalling, scandal-ridden, utterly discredited and totally compromised Keelty is irredeemably politicised – in fact has offered himself up to the political game by his own choice?

“It’s time for Mick Keelty to resign. Or be sacked…Keelty has to go because of how he thinks about the law…He has to go because everything points to his being utterly politicised and his making decisions on political, not legal, grounds as directed by his [then] masters, the Howard ministry.”

Keelty made, cleverly he probably thought, a Faustian pact with the Devil of Realpolitik. Now he’s been caught out yet again and so we say, yet again:

“Do the decent thing at long last, Mick.”

Not a Civil Society Just Yet

Apr 13, 2008 | Australian Values, Border Security, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Immigration, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Religious Values, Terrorism, Values

Not a Civil Society Just Yet

 

 

We have a new hero at Values Australia (no, not Manning Clark).
His name is Julian Burnside QC. Not that we didn’t respect him before and agree with him and all like that. But, well…see it’s like this:

We got an mp3 player, for the train or whatever, and to fill it up we scoured ABC Radio National for podcasts.

Science Show, All in the Mind, Philosopher’s Zone, By Design, Ockham’s Razor.

You know the stuff. And of course there’s Big Ideas.

So we downloaded a likely lump about a Manning Clark Lecture:

“Citizens’ rights and the rule of law in a civil society: not just yet”.

It was by Julian Burnside, on the 10th of March this year.

Thought it might be a bit dry but we were so wrong about that!.

We were astonished.

He covers everything we had been trying to say but with such authority and knowledge. So we recommend you have a listen, too.

In his lecture he covered the Sorry statement and the appalling case of an aboriginal man called Bruce Trevorrow.

In the end we were far more inclined to agree with Burnside that some sort of compensation for the stolen generations is appropriate, rather than just the more nebulous idea of an improvement of aborigines’ lot, generally, over time.

“ In the first sitting of the new parliament, the Government said ‘sorry’ to the stolen generations. It seemed almost too good to be true: the apology so many had waited so long to hear. And it was astonishing and uplifting to hear some of the noblest and most dignified sentiments ever uttered in that place on the hill.
[ … ]
The apology was significant not only for marking a significant step in the process of reconciling ourselves with our past: it cast a new light on the former government. It set a new tone. And I think it reminded us of something we had lost: a sense of decency.

 

Most of the worst aspects of the Howard years can be explained by the lack of decency which infected their approach to government:

 

they could not acknowledge the wrong that was done to the stolen generations;

 

they failed to help David Hicks when it was a moral imperative – they waited until his rescue became a political imperative;

they never quite understood the wickedness of imprisoning children who were fleeing persecution;

they abandoned ministerial responsibility;

they attacked the courts scandalously but unblushing;

they argued for the right to detain innocent people for life;

they introduced laws which prevent fair trials;

they bribed the impoverished Republic of Nauru to warehouse refugees for us.

It seemed that they did not understand just how badly they were behaving, or perhaps they just did not care.

He also spoke about the rule of law, incommunicado detention, control orders and preventative detention, the right of the State (and its secret agencies) to withhold evidence, civil rights, erosion of rights, a Bill of Rights and more.

His lecture went further than the ABC podcast includes. Nevertheless the podcast is excellent.

Here’s a transcript of part of his speech which is on the podcast:

“ In 2005 further anti-terror legislation was introduced. The Commonwealth Criminal Code was amended to provide that a member of the Federal Police may apply for a preventative detention order in relation to a person. A preventative detention order will result in a person being jailed for up to 14 days in circumstances where they have not been charged with, much less convicted of, any offence. The order is obtained in the absence of the person concerned, and authorises that the person be taken into custody. When the person is taken into custody, they must not be told the evidence on which the order was obtained.

Thus, a preventative detention order can be made not only without a trial of any sort, but in circumstances where the subject of the order will not be allowed to know the evidence which was used to secure the order, even after the event.

We believe that few Australians are aware of just how far John Howard and his morally-neutered hired guns like Ruddock, Andrews, Vanstone and Mick Keelty went, in the name of “security” to tear down their legal rights and liberties.

Australians generally, we think, are unclear how little of what they believe they have they really have left. Perhaps, as Burnside suggests, they don’t want to know, as long as they’re doing all right and it’s not affecting them. But of course it does affect them and it will.

Habeas corpus is dead and stinking not only in the US but now here in Australia as well. Dwight D. Eisenhower must be rolling in his grave over what John Yoo and Alberto Gonzalez, with Dick Cheney and George Bush and the supine American Senate, did to habeas corpus in the US:

Here are Ike’s Remarks Upon Receiving the America’s Democratic Legacy Award at B’nai B’rith:

“ Why are we proud?

We are proud, first of all, because from the beginning of this Nation, a man can walk upright, no matter who he is, or who she is. He can walk upright and meet his friend – or his enemy; and he does not fear that because that enemy may be in a position of great power that he can be suddenly thrown in jail to rot there without charges and with no recourse to justice. We have the habeas corpus Act, and we respect it.”

With this lecture Julian Burnside — for standing up and saying what is so — has for us moved from “respected” to “hero”.

Here is the recording  of Burnside’s Manning Clark Lecture from ABC’s Big Ideas:

Not Just Yet

by Julian Burnside QC

Lex Australia

Dec 8, 2007 | Australian Values, Border Security, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Immigration, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Terrorism, Values

Lex Australia

 

Came across an old post at Gavin Putland’s Leges Dubiae blog which coincides with what we tried to say way back when Haneef was the name on everyone’s lips.

Given the change of government and all, it seems timely to question this preposterous example of the legislative legacy of the Howard years.

It wasn’t so much about the guilt or innocence of Haneef, or the appalling mismanagement of the case by the Federal Police under the even more appallingly incompetent and bloody Mick Keelty. It was that the law under which Haneef was arrested and charged was stupid, or, as Putland puts it, “dubious”. Haneef is not a citizen of Australia and the act for which he was charged (giving his Sim Card to someone “with reckless disregard” for whether that person was a terrorist) was carried out in another country.

The whole idea is ludicrous. Putland says:

” Although the Statute of Westminster gave the Australian Parliament the power to make laws with “extra-territorial operation”, it has always been understood that such operation would affect only Australian citizens. By charging Haneef, Australia is now asserting the power to make laws binding on non-Australians outside Australia.”

As Alex Downer would have said, “That’s pwepostewous!” (God, don’t we miss him already?)

The problem even goes further.

This is what Haneef was charged with:

” intentionally providing resources to a terrorist organisation consisting of persons including Sabeel Ahmed and Kafeel Ahmed, his cousins, being reckless as to whether the organisation was a terrorist organisation”

This pre-empts British law, since the British have never charged either Ahmed brother with being a member of a “terrorist organisation”, and such an assertion, had it even been made, has never been tested in a court whether British or Australian. (Indeed, it was not even legally established or legally asserted at the time that the incident was a “terrorist act”.) Nevertheless, the Australian Federal Police, by making the charge under the extra-territorial powers of the you beaut Ruddock/Keelty legislation, arrogated the pre-eminence of Australian law over British law. That is just plain dumb.

The Lex Romana was intended (we appear to recall from long ago) to simplify and organise all the laws for all people under Rome’s sway. It is said to be Rome’s most important, lasting and unique gift to the world.

But now if Australia can make laws for the whole of the rest of the world – not just , Australians, Australia and its territories – and if every other nation, therefore, can also, with equal justification, make laws for everyone in the world, then we have a little more confusion than was intended by the codification of Roman law.

Saudi Arabia, for example, could take Australia’s example and under its extraterritorial powers impose Sharia law on non-Saudis living in Australia (i.e. most of us). It could then apply for extradition to Saudi Arabia of anyone it had reason to believe had committed adultery, say, so that they could be stoned to death – or perhaps just the women, in Sharia’s very civilised and enlightened way.

Yes, it sounds like a joke but it’s not. The law is a joke. But this joke of a law was seriously applied to Mohamed Haneef and threatened to send him to prison in Australia for fifteen very serious years.

And you know, the terrible irony is that the law was written (so hastily and so abominably poorly) with only one purpose in mind – the re-election of the Howard government…….

Oops!

The law is even worse and more stupid than this and you can read more of what we said in July. And here is a distillation of the relevant sections of the law under which Haneef was charged.

In a nutshell, the law means that:

if anyone, whether Australian or not, anywhere in the world, sells, shares, or gives any thing or any service, to anyone anywhere in the world, and they do not take reasonable and verifiable steps to assure themselves that the person to whom they provide the thing or service is not [or could not at some indeterminate time in the future be deemed to be] a terrorist or part of a terrorist organisation and they do not take reasonable steps to assure themselves that the person (or organisation) could not use it or plan to use it in any way as part of a terrorist act then they may be found guilty of the same crime that Haneef was charged with and spend fifteen years in prison.

So of course it’s ridiculous. But it’s no joke.

And it is still Australian law.

Hi …

Nov 24, 2007 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Cultural Values, Democracy, Economic Values, Immigration, Lifestyle & Life, Media Values, OzPol Values, Values

Hi …

Hi!

 

 

Hi Hi!

 

 (gulp)

Hi hi ho!

(gulp)

Hip! Hip! Hooray!

The national result, the result in Bennelong and the role the Greens played in getting Labor over the line are a clear enough repudiation of Howard’s political ideology.

Thanks to Possum, to the Pollbludger, to Ozpolitics, to Mumble and to Simon Jackman.

But especially thanks to Possum (whose site now sports the baseball bat) for helping to keep us sane through the scary last days.

So we’d just like to say to our old mate and penpal, Bob Correll:

We’re sorry, Bob that you’ll have to deal with the fact that it was largely your own hard work, in DEWR and as Deputy Secretary in DIC, that was responsible for so much of the swing against the government.

I’m sure you’ll be more than aware of just what effective and efficient services are provided to people in search of employment – as we expect you shortly to be – by CentreLink and the Job Network Members you helped to set up. (Perhaps you could show your mate Mick Keelty how to get there.)

So vale, Bob, old mate.

Trust Me…I’m From the Feds…

Nov 14, 2007 | Australian Values, Citizenship, Corruption, Cultural Values, Democracy, Freedom of Speech, Immigration, Legal, Media Values, OzPol Values, Racism, Terrorism, Values

Trust Me…I’m From the Feds…

 

Wha..!? I woun’t not of never of dun nuffink so bad like wot you say!

 

Federal agent Bruce Pegg, who interviewed Mr Ul-Haque in prison, told NSW Supreme Court judge Michael Adams he had done nothing improper by questioning Mr Ul-Haque without a caution.

” Why didn’t you caution him when you were going to ask him questions which were capable of exposing him to a criminal charge?” Justice Adams asked him.

 

“There was no intention in my mind of using that conversation in any proceedings against Mr Ul-Haque,” Agent Pegg said.

 

Justice Adams: “It would rather depend on what he told you, wouldn’t it?”

Thank christ for judges like Adams.

Supposedly Ul-Haque declined the kind offer to wear a wire to attempt to incriminate another person. He had an opinion about that, he told an AFP officer, who allegedly said:

“Well you know what they say about opinions: opinions are like arseholes; everyone’s got one.”

And you know what they say about arseholes: Mick Keelty’s got thousands of them. That’s how he shits on Australia. 

Justice Adams said ASIO officers

“committed the criminal offences of false imprisonment and kidnapping.”

When do they go to prison?

Have they been arrested and charged yet?
Where are they being detained?
Are they being pursued and prosecuted by the AFP with the same vigour and determination that it showed against…oh, I don’t know…Mohamed Haneef, say?