A Changeable Chief
By Father Park
Mick Keelty, the “war in Iraq has made us a larger target for terrorism….sorry, scratch that: on Prime ministerial advice no it hasn’t” AFP Chief, has decided that he always knew there was no case that could be made against Gold Coast Doctor Haneef. He even told the Director of Public Prosecutions his view that the case should be dropped. This because, in changeable Chief’s words, “I didn't think the evidence was strong enough”.
A pity he didn’t say so at the time. And why didn’t he say so at the time? Well, it seems what he thinks doesn’t matter:
Had the case made it to a court, who will have provided the brief of evidence? The Chief Cop and his investigative team; the people who, on the word of the changeable Chief, did not have the evidence to back the case. Keelty would have us believe that the DPP, having been advised by the AFP top cop that the evidence it would have to provide would not make a case, went ahead with a that case.
That’s not what the AFP Chief said at the time though. Back then there was” other evidence” not made public and “continuing evidence gathering” into all sorts of things including communications by Haneef and his finances. None of which amounted to anything.
It was a political trial from start to finish. We can have a government baying for a public enquiry into TWU “slush funds” but absolutely no countenancing of an enquiry into the complete balls-up that was this “investigation”. The whole incompetent imbroglio makes a complete mockery of our ridiculous “anti-terror laws”.
Perhaps the lack of any enquiry is to spare our agencies any further acute embarrassment. More likely it is the hide the government’s role in the affair. A role, judging by the actions of minister Andrews, that was relentlessly partisan.
Today's SMH
Mick Keelty, the “war in Iraq has made us a larger target for terrorism….sorry, scratch that: on Prime ministerial advice no it hasn’t” AFP Chief, has decided that he always knew there was no case that could be made against Gold Coast Doctor Haneef. He even told the Director of Public Prosecutions his view that the case should be dropped. This because, in changeable Chief’s words, “I didn't think the evidence was strong enough”.
A pity he didn’t say so at the time. And why didn’t he say so at the time? Well, it seems what he thinks doesn’t matter:
"Mine was an opinion that I expressed to the DPP, but I understood all the time that the prosecutor was independent of me and independent of the investigation and needed to come up with a view for himself."Pardon the bleeding obvious pun but what a cop-out.
Had the case made it to a court, who will have provided the brief of evidence? The Chief Cop and his investigative team; the people who, on the word of the changeable Chief, did not have the evidence to back the case. Keelty would have us believe that the DPP, having been advised by the AFP top cop that the evidence it would have to provide would not make a case, went ahead with a that case.
That’s not what the AFP Chief said at the time though. Back then there was” other evidence” not made public and “continuing evidence gathering” into all sorts of things including communications by Haneef and his finances. None of which amounted to anything.
It was a political trial from start to finish. We can have a government baying for a public enquiry into TWU “slush funds” but absolutely no countenancing of an enquiry into the complete balls-up that was this “investigation”. The whole incompetent imbroglio makes a complete mockery of our ridiculous “anti-terror laws”.
Perhaps the lack of any enquiry is to spare our agencies any further acute embarrassment. More likely it is the hide the government’s role in the affair. A role, judging by the actions of minister Andrews, that was relentlessly partisan.
Today's SMH
posted by Father Park at 10/24/2007 08:59:00 AM
1 Comments:
Yeah, good grief!
The words of that "unnamed military officer" (quoted by Harper's in relation to the Hick's wheeling-and-dealing) seems to fit here also:
"I kept thinking: this is the sort of thing that used to go on behind the Iron Curtain, not in America. And then it struck me how much this entire process had disintegrated into a political charade. It's demoralising for all of us."
(See also in today's smh.)
Post a Comment
<< Home