labor renews call haneef case judicial inq

Labor renews call for Haneef case judicial inquiry
Posted Fri Nov 2, 2007

Mohamed Haneef's lawyer says there was a conspiracy to keep his client behind bars on a terrorism-related charge.

Related Story: Labor renews call for Haneef case judicial inquiry Federal Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says there is a mounting case of evidence to show Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews mismanaged the Mohamed Haneef case.

Dr Haneef's lawyer Peter Russo has obtained emails between the Australian Federal Police and the Immigration Department.

Mr Russo says they show there was a conspiracy to keep Dr Haneef behind bars on a terrorism-related charge, which was later dropped.

Mr Rudd says the latest allegations add weight to Labor's view that there should be a judicial inquiry, but he has stopped short of supporting calls for Mr Andrews to resign.

"I would like to examine today's report more carefully," he said.

"But I think there is a mounting case in terms of ministerial mismanagement of this matter, we must get to the bottom of it, and therefore a judicial inquiry is appropriate.

"I've said again, if we form the next government of Australia, there will be one. We need to get to the bottom of this."


Sacking call

Meanwhile, one of Australia's leading barristers has called for Mr Andrews to be sacked for his handling of the case.

Julian Burnside QC says Mr Andrews should be stood down because he misused his powers while the former Gold Coast doctor was being held in July.

Mr Burnside has told this weekend's Sunday Profile program he has seen the emails sent between Australian Federal Police and the Immigration Department.

"What it shows is that at least two days before the bail magistrate ruled that Dr Haneef was entitled to bail, the Federal Police had arranged that the visa would be revoked if necessary, in order to make sure he remain in custody," he said.

"I think that is the clearest indication yet that he misused his power."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/11/02/2080466.htm
...............................................................................................................................

Sunday, November 6, 2005.

Govt to arm military with shoot-to-kill powers.

Soldiers with shoot-to-kill powers could patrol Australian streets to help fight terrorism under laws being proposed by the Federal Government.

Defence Minister Robert Hill will introduce the legislation to Parliament before Christmas and wants it passed early next year.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200511/s1498813.htm

New shoot to kill powers

22 February 2006
"Furthermore, the ADF may: shoot fleeing civilians evading detention (something not available to the ordinary police)"

Receiving almost no corporate media coverage, a Senate committee recommended on January 31 the passage of a bill that will make it easier for the Australian Defence Force (ADF) to police and shoot civilians. The powers go well beyond dealing with a terrorist threat and in important respects put the military above state criminal laws.

Some powers were given to the ADF to intervene in public order management in the lead-up to the 2000 Sydney Olympics, however, the new Defence Legislation Amendment (Aid to Civilian Authorities) Bill 2005 proposes:


to make it easier for the ADF to be called out where there is a threat to any “designated infrastructure”;

expanded “shoot-to-kill” powers such that civilians could be shot for the protection of property from “damage or disruption”;

a “following orders” defence for soldiers who shoot civilians;

to give the prime minister alone the power to authorise troop call-outs where a “sudden and extraordinary emergency exists”;

that individual soldiers be given the power to police civilians, including requiring people to answer questions or produce documents;

no need to notify the public that troops have been called out; and

that soldiers may operate without the need to wear a name tag.
Under the proposed legislation, the federal government may use the ADF to protect “Commonwealth interests” even if the state or territory concerned opposes it. The new powers operate where there is “domestic violence”, as vague as that phrase is.

Furthermore, the ADF may:


shoot fleeing civilians evading detention (something not available to the ordinary police);

detain people without arresting them; and

search premises, people and vehicles without warrants (thus avoiding judicial scrutiny).
A particular concern is that the proposed laws do not require the public release of army manuals in relation to ADF rules of engagement with civilians. One submission to the parliamentary committee reviewing the laws pointed out that Greens Senator Bob Brown had previously read out extracts from the 1983 Australian Army Manual of Land Warfare, leaked to the press in 1993, with particular reference to section 543. This section instructs military personnel to adopt courses of conduct that seem designed to cover up the killing or wounding of “dissidents”. It states, in part: “Dead and wounded dissidents, if identifiable, must be removed immediately by the police ... When being reported, dissident and own casualties are categorised merely as dead or wounded. To inhibit propaganda exploitation by the dissidents the cause of the casualties (for example, 'shot’) is not reported. A follow-up operation should be carried out to maintain the momentum of the dispersing crowd.”
http://www.greenleft.org.au/2006/657/7406