Two news reports out today clearly show how the now defeated Howard Government - and certain Ministers in particular, such as Downer, Ruddock, Andrews and the PM himself - stand sorely condemned for their conduct in a variety of ways in relation to Mamdouh Habib and Dr Haneef.
Thanks to a judge hearing a defamation case in NSW releasing a hitherto secret report on Mr Habib we are now better informed about the Howard Government's duplicity and unconscionable conduct:
"Senior members of the Howard government, including the former prime minister and the foreign minister, were given a detailed briefing on Mamdouh Habib's allegations of torture in Egypt as early as mid-2002.
But they never told the Australian public of the serious allegations, did little to investigate them — and three years later were still protesting they had no knowledge Mr Habib had even been in Egypt.
NSW Supreme Court judge Justice Peter McClelland — who is hearing a defamation case brought by Mr Habib against Nationwide News over an article written by columnist Piers Ackerman — yesterday released a welfare report sent to prime minister John Howard, foreign minister Alexander Downer and others in late May 2002, just after the first visit by Australian officials to see Mr Habib and David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay.
"(Mr Habib) said he was tortured," the report, marked "secret", said. "Water was dripped on his head and he was administered electric shocks over his body. Mr Habib said he was trussed upside down and his body beaten. He said he sustained broken ribs, two broken toes and bleeding from his penis."
The report — entitled Australian Government Visit to Guantanamo Bay: Welfare Aspects — goes on to describe how Mr Habib said his "captors made him listen to noises that resembled his family and the sound of his wife being raped and children being beaten. He said he was placed neck-high in water for extended periods of time and not allowed to sleep."
Read the full piece in The Age here. Meanwhile, the dangers of vesting Government agencies with authority to act secretly is no where more clearly shown than in this piece, also in The Age:
"Brisbane lawyer Peter Russo had no idea of the sweep and power of Australia's terrorism laws until he answered a call from the sergeant in charge of the watchhouse at Brisbane's police station in July.
As a criminal lawyer, he was considered by the police to be obliging and often helped deal with drunks.
On this occasion he walked through the reinforced steel door and was astounded to find himself defending a client against evidence considered so secret that he could not see it.
At the National Press Club yesterday, Mr Russo recounted what it is like to be a lawyer at the business end of the laws introduced after the September 11 terrorism attacks, as he tried to find out what Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef had allegedly done and battled to free him from custody.
The sergeant introduced him to two detectives. One gestured towards the television news showing a vehicle burning at Glasgow Airport and told him that was why he was there.
The other handed him two sheets of paper from the Crimes Act that he had printed from the internet.
"He tried to explain to me how that section of the Crimes Act works. It was about that time I started to get a bit concerned about how this was unfolding."
He was then introduced to Dr Haneef, who told him he was a doctor at the Gold Coast Hospital with a wife and new baby.
Normally police tell a suspect what they had allegedly done and what the evidence against them was, Mr Russo said.
He soon discovered the situation was very different in a terrorism case."
It is note and praiseworthy that the incoming Attorney-General today announced an expansion of the inquiry into the Haneef case, as the SMH reports:
"The investigation into the deportation of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef may be expanded, incoming attorney-general Robert McClelland says.
Mr McClelland said he would wait for reports from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the ASIO security service and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) before deciding if further scrutiny was necessary.
The AFP and DPP have blamed each other for the collapse of the case but Mr McClelland said there were broader issues to be examined.
"The Haneef case in some ways is an example of a breakdown in effective functioning," he told The Weekend Australian.
"From afar, on any measure it looked untidy."
Thanks to a judge hearing a defamation case in NSW releasing a hitherto secret report on Mr Habib we are now better informed about the Howard Government's duplicity and unconscionable conduct:
"Senior members of the Howard government, including the former prime minister and the foreign minister, were given a detailed briefing on Mamdouh Habib's allegations of torture in Egypt as early as mid-2002.
But they never told the Australian public of the serious allegations, did little to investigate them — and three years later were still protesting they had no knowledge Mr Habib had even been in Egypt.
NSW Supreme Court judge Justice Peter McClelland — who is hearing a defamation case brought by Mr Habib against Nationwide News over an article written by columnist Piers Ackerman — yesterday released a welfare report sent to prime minister John Howard, foreign minister Alexander Downer and others in late May 2002, just after the first visit by Australian officials to see Mr Habib and David Hicks at Guantanamo Bay.
"(Mr Habib) said he was tortured," the report, marked "secret", said. "Water was dripped on his head and he was administered electric shocks over his body. Mr Habib said he was trussed upside down and his body beaten. He said he sustained broken ribs, two broken toes and bleeding from his penis."
The report — entitled Australian Government Visit to Guantanamo Bay: Welfare Aspects — goes on to describe how Mr Habib said his "captors made him listen to noises that resembled his family and the sound of his wife being raped and children being beaten. He said he was placed neck-high in water for extended periods of time and not allowed to sleep."
Read the full piece in The Age here. Meanwhile, the dangers of vesting Government agencies with authority to act secretly is no where more clearly shown than in this piece, also in The Age:
"Brisbane lawyer Peter Russo had no idea of the sweep and power of Australia's terrorism laws until he answered a call from the sergeant in charge of the watchhouse at Brisbane's police station in July.
As a criminal lawyer, he was considered by the police to be obliging and often helped deal with drunks.
On this occasion he walked through the reinforced steel door and was astounded to find himself defending a client against evidence considered so secret that he could not see it.
At the National Press Club yesterday, Mr Russo recounted what it is like to be a lawyer at the business end of the laws introduced after the September 11 terrorism attacks, as he tried to find out what Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef had allegedly done and battled to free him from custody.
The sergeant introduced him to two detectives. One gestured towards the television news showing a vehicle burning at Glasgow Airport and told him that was why he was there.
The other handed him two sheets of paper from the Crimes Act that he had printed from the internet.
"He tried to explain to me how that section of the Crimes Act works. It was about that time I started to get a bit concerned about how this was unfolding."
He was then introduced to Dr Haneef, who told him he was a doctor at the Gold Coast Hospital with a wife and new baby.
Normally police tell a suspect what they had allegedly done and what the evidence against them was, Mr Russo said.
He soon discovered the situation was very different in a terrorism case."
It is note and praiseworthy that the incoming Attorney-General today announced an expansion of the inquiry into the Haneef case, as the SMH reports:
"The investigation into the deportation of Indian doctor Mohamed Haneef may be expanded, incoming attorney-general Robert McClelland says.
Mr McClelland said he would wait for reports from the Australian Federal Police (AFP), the ASIO security service and the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) before deciding if further scrutiny was necessary.
The AFP and DPP have blamed each other for the collapse of the case but Mr McClelland said there were broader issues to be examined.
"The Haneef case in some ways is an example of a breakdown in effective functioning," he told The Weekend Australian.
"From afar, on any measure it looked untidy."
Comments