Skip to main content

Kevin Andrews: The lawyer unable to answer any questions

That the Government, and the Federal Police, have a lot to answer for in their total mishandling and disgraceful conduct in relation to the Haneef case, veteran radio man, Jon Faine, subjected Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews [one time member of the Victorian Bar] to what can only be described as a searing cross-examination on ABC Radio 774 the other morning:

Andrews: "The basis of [my decision] is that legislation provides that I should form a reasonable suspicion of an association between Haneef and those engaged in terrorism in the UK, namely the Ahmed brothers. Now, in forming a reasonable suspicion of that association, I was entitled to look at the fact that Haneef and the brothers knew each other, fraternised in the UK [a year ago], the material relating to the SIM card [Haneef had given to his relative a year ago], to the fact of a loan of money…"

Faine: "Are you aware anywhere, at any time, in any investigation in the world, of any suspect in terrorism calling the police even once, let alone four times, to provide his whereabouts and his contact details?"

Andrews: "Well Jon, firstly, the suspicion I've formed on the material at the time I made my decision, was to clearly raise a suspicion in my mind. And indeed, subsequent information provided to me be the federal police actually has confirmed that suspicion that I've had in in my mind."

Faine: "Could you answer my question?"

Andrews: "Sorry, what was the question?"

Faine: "The question you didn't answer is, are you aware of anywhere, anytime, in any investigation in any jurisdiction in the world, of a terrorist suspect ringing the police once, let alone four times, to provide information of their whereabouts, their identity, and to provide co-operation to the police investigating an act of terrorism?"

Andrews: "Well, that's a matter you'll need to take up with the federal police. I understand there was no actual contact made between Dr Haneef and [British police]."

Faine: "No, he phoned four times the number provided for a policeman in the UK [who had phoned Haneef's extended family in India. An aunt had then phoned Haneef in Australia to pass on the policeman's name and UK number]. Are you aware of any terrorist suspect anywhere in the world ever doing that?"

Andrews: "Well Jon, I'm not aware of every terrorist investigation in the world. I had material before me. I had to consider that material. I considered that material, and I believe in the national interest it was appropriate to cancel his visa … At the end of the day, it's a question of whether or not I had a reasonable suspicion."

There is only one word for it! Andrews failed, abjectly, answering anything remotely satisfactorily. He joins A-G Ruddock as yet another disgraceful Minister in the Howard cabinet.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reading the Chilcot Inquiry Report more closely

Most commentary on the Chilcot Inquiry Report of and associated with the Iraq War, has been "lifted" from the Executive Summary.   The Intercept has actually gone and dug into the Report, with these revelations : "THE CHILCOT REPORT, the U.K.’s official inquiry into its participation in the Iraq War, has finally been released after seven years of investigation. Its executive summary certainly makes former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who led the British push for war, look terrible. According to the report, Blair made statements about Iraq’s nonexistent chemical, biological, and nuclear programs based on “what Mr. Blair believed” rather than the intelligence he had been given. The U.K. went to war despite the fact that “diplomatic options had not been exhausted.” Blair was warned by British intelligence that terrorism would “increase in the event of war, reflecting intensified anti-US/anti-Western sentiment in the Muslim world, including among Muslim communities in the

Robert Fisk's predictions for the Middle East in 2013

There is no gain-saying that Robert Fisk, fiercely independent and feisty to boot, is the veteran journalist and author covering the Middle East. Who doesn't he know or hasn't he met over the years in reporting from Beirut - where he lives?  In his latest op-ed piece for The Independent he lays out his predictions for the Middle East for 2013. Read the piece in full, here - well worthwhile - but an extract... "Never make predictions in the Middle East. My crystal ball broke long ago. But predicting the region has an honourable pedigree. “An Arab movement, newly-risen, is looming in the distance,” a French traveller to the Gulf and Baghdad wrote in 1883, “and a race hitherto downtrodden will presently claim its due place in the destinies of Islam.” A year earlier, a British diplomat in Jeddah confided that “it is within my knowledge... that the idea of freedom does at present agitate some minds even in Mecca...” So let’s say this for 2013: the “Arab Awakening” (the t

An unpalatable truth!

Quinoa has for the last years been the "new" food on the block for foodies. Known for its health properties, foodies the world over have taken to it. Many restaurants have added it to their menu. But, as this piece " Can vegans stomach the unpalatable truth about quinoa? " from The Guardian so clearly details, the cost to Bolivians and Peruvians - from where quinoa hails - has been substantial. "Not long ago, quinoa was just an obscure Peruvian grain you could only buy in wholefood shops. We struggled to pronounce it (it's keen-wa, not qui-no-a), yet it was feted by food lovers as a novel addition to the familiar ranks of couscous and rice. Dieticians clucked over quinoa approvingly because it ticked the low-fat box and fitted in with government healthy eating advice to "base your meals on starchy foods". Adventurous eaters liked its slightly bitter taste and the little white curls that formed around the grains. Vegans embraced quinoa as