Barrister upsets behemoth

The Queensland barrister representing imprisoned alleged terrorist Dr Mohammed Haneef today released to the media that part of the official record of interview of his client by federal police that was given to the Doctor in fulfillment of one of what few of his rights might still exist. He says he did this because there is a deliberate ploy by our 'law enforcement' agencies to selectively leak small snippets of the interview in order to crucify his client. In the transcript released, the good doctor earnestly maintains his innocence - the image created by the previous leaks, he looked shonky and shifty. Hmmm.

Illegal and unethical, says smiling phil - chief law officer of the land. Despicable, says honest john. A cause of delay of the legal process, if not a frustration of same, says top dog sergeant plod. Queensland barrister says he's happy to wait for them at his office if they wish to come and get him. So far, they haven't.

Smiling phil is now talking about changing our anti-democratic anti-terror laws so that those alleged to be involved with terrorism won't ever get bail ever again. In the last week, Dr Mohammed and, in an unrelated case, three sri lankan men charged over giving money to tamil tigers in their homeland, have been granted bail by australian courts. In the second case, the judge said as part of his reasoning that the case against the three accused was so weak that to not grant bail would be to undermine the basic underpinning of our legal system. And it shouldn't be forgotten that top dog sergeant plod said about Dr Mohammed's case that it too was very weak.

Nor should it be forgotten that those beating up the outraged outcry from the battlements about shonky lawyers, evil indians etc are those that are applauding the way they have (mis)used a law to both besmirch character and keep locked up in Australia Dr Mohammed (the law is designed for those whose character is already besmirched who you want to kick out after they've served their time). Commenting during the case before him, which began today, the federal judge who is looking at the lawfulness of the decision to revoke visa of Dr Mohammed is reported as saying that the character test used to justify the action is one which he himself would fail.

Of interest here also, the Indian government is beginning to show its upset about how we are treating one of their citizens. They have had words with the ambassador. Honest john would do well not to think that, all because his texan friend could laugh at the world as it grumbled about guantanamo bay and get away with it, arrogant dismissal of another nation's earnest concerns doesn't assist the war on terror in any way at all. Looking at Israel's gentle treatment of palestine and the palestinians tends to make me think the opposite.

Who is the terrorist, those tearing up the spirit and meaning of our laws, or the innocent man in jail?

I phrase it this way because to phrase it in any other is to remove the presumption of innocence from the doctor on this blog, and it is that presumption which underlies the freedom from arbitrary arrest and the liberty of all of our persons. It is a valuable thing.