# GUilty till proven innocent...



## slim6y (Jul 13, 2007)

These new anti-terrorism laws aren't actually as new as we considered. They were heavily enforced in UK (typically England) during tensions between England and the IRA. 

If you've ever seen the movie "In the Name of the Father" with Daniel Day Lewis it follows the story of an Irishman trying to make a go of it in England. But unfortunately a bomb went off in Guilford and someone dobbed them in. Even though, so the movie depicts, they had nothing to do with it.

It lead to the arrest of the Guilford Four and they were guilty and jailed under the UK's anti-terrorism laws.

Even when the ACTUAL bomber made himself known, the guilford four were stiull behind bars.

Including family members.

I can't help but see the similarity between the most recent failed car bomb attempts in Scotland and the Gold Coast doctors arrested in relation with this incident.

Now, there's always two sides to the story. But how many people believe these men were guilty before any evidence is found?

Sounds almost similar to trying to find nukes or chemical weapons in Iraq! 

"THE federal police has not yet gathered evidence to charge detained Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef, as the clock winds down on his questioning time.

Dr Haneef has told the Australian Federal Police (AFP) about his family ties and telephone contact with accused UK suicide bomber Kafeel Ahmed, his second cousin with whom he shared a house in Liverpool for up to two years, The Australian newspaper reports.

However, despite executing several search search warrants, federal agents have been unable to find any incriminating evidence with which to bring charges."

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22066929-952,00.html

Now - There's no way i support terrorism, but a fair and equitable system is something I fully support.

I seriously am not sure about this case. But I just see some similarities to the Guilford Four and hope mistakes like that don't happen ever again.

I worry just cycling down the street with my back pack on - afterall, i do look like a terrorist (a kiwi bomber looking to radicalise Australia as part of NZ - but we seem to be doing a fine job of that without much of my help). Just even the slightest suspicion could put me in jail for 72 hours or something like that. 

The chances are this won't happen of course, but it's possible that's the whole point.

These laws are set up to protect us from terrorists and also to make an exhibition of possible terrorists to put them off this... But... Recent studies of course have shown that there's more radical 'possibilities' than what we care to think about. 

Should we arrest them all too?

I'm out of time, i was really just bored and having my 30 second (turned 15 minute) rant... Up to you what you do with it - because to all i care the above is totally 100% wrong!


----------



## peas_and_corn (Jul 13, 2007)

OK, now as a preamble, I need to stress that I agree with you as first and foremost I'm a firm believer in due process. However, I like sparking discussion.

In the case of the doctors, the main reason they have been giving for them being held is that they are waiting for people to question them. Essentially this is not a matter for the AFP to get involved directly with, as it is a criminal investigation that involves police within the United Kingdom. They have been waiting for for someone from there to come over to do the questioning- why it hasn't happened is beyond me.

The biggest case that is used to justify the 'sedition laws' as they are called, is that to be able to pre-emptively detain someone, they must obtain the approval of a (I think supreme court, or maybe high court, can't remember) judge, who can give out an approval of up to 48 hours' detention. After that time, an extension must be granted, for detention of up to a week. The assumption is not that they are guilty, but rather that they have information about a planned crime that needs to be known.


----------



## Forensick (Jul 13, 2007)

you miss the most important pieces of evidence!
firstly his name is Mohamed,
secondly his skin is a funny colour
thirdly, he was leaving an uninvolved country, for another univolved country with a one way ticket!

seriously..... this is john howards australia we live in... thats all the evidence we need!


----------



## Beechy (Jul 13, 2007)

As this is a free country, if you don't like it you can leave.
I would rather someone be held than them blowing something up. If they are innocent I'm pretty sure they will be compensated for wrongful imprisonment.


----------



## slim6y (Jul 13, 2007)

Both your replies are flawless!

So we wait for a person from the UK to question our GC doctor.

Seriously though, if they were to arrest GC doctors who were of middle eastern decent, the hospital would shut down! There'd be no doctors in there to run it!

But i digress, that's a totally different topic.

Anyhow - I almost hope this guy has NOTHING to do with the bombing and he sues the government for millions of dollars in lost revenue and slander about his name etc and then goes and funds a terrorist cell (haha - the last part isn't a hope, but a distinct possiblity).

Also watch Catch A Fire about a South African coloured man who is also just trying to make a living when he gets what's coming to him because of his colour - and a seemingly good person ends up training to be a terrorist because of his treatment. Also based on a true story.


----------



## slim6y (Jul 13, 2007)

Beechy said:


> As this is a free country, if you don't like it you can leave.
> I would rather someone be held than them blowing something up. If they are innocent I'm pretty sure they will be compensated for wrongful imprisonment.



A free country? Is it? Are you sure you understand the word freedom? sn't it illegal in this country not to vote? Doesn't seem very free to me 

Blowing something up? This guy isn't even a suspect - he's a second cousin of a guy that may (or may not) have attempted to do some nasty damage in another country!

He, just as you eloquently stated, is guilty before proven innocent - that is not fair! And I doubt he will be compensated without a fight!


----------



## Forensick (Jul 13, 2007)

ah...
according to the law that enables him to be held potentially indefinately without charge, no compensation is needed. not so much as a sorry.

and seriously, what is there to defend if we sacrifice "freedom" for freedoms sake?
its like giving away your wallet to stop yourself being mugged.

those who sacrifice liberty for freedom, deserve neither


----------



## zobo (Jul 13, 2007)

Forensick said:


> you miss the most important pieces of evidence!
> firstly his name is Mohamed,
> secondly his skin is a funny colour
> thirdly, he was leaving an uninvolved country, for another univolved country with a one way ticket!
> ...



Are you really serious????? what a load of rubbish anytime anything happens to people nowadays they all cry racism. (even if they are guilty).
This is simply a matter of trying to sift through all the 20,000+ pages of info.
Tell me this, how would you like it if this guy was released and went and blew up a major airport (like his associates tried to do) and killed off your whole family? All you civil libertarians would then be whinging WHY was he not kept in jail? who let him out? who's neck is on the chopping block now?
The police etc are trying to protect YOU and this guy associates with known crims who carried out an attack and he tried to flee the country, what did you expect them to do?

Its funny you all want to live in a safe society but lets see who all the whinges are when an attack happens on our soil. My bet is the same people will be saying WHY didn't the police do something about it before it happened. 
jas


----------



## slim6y (Jul 13, 2007)

zobo said:


> Are you really serious????? what a load of rubbish anytime anything happens to people nowadays they all cry racism. (even if they are guilty).
> This is simply a matter of trying to sift through all the 20,000+ pages of info.
> Tell me this, how would you like it if this guy was released and went and blew up a major airport (like his associates tried to do) and killed off your whole family? All you civil libertarians would then be whinging WHY was he not kept in jail? who let him out? who's neck is on the chopping block now?
> The police etc are trying to protect YOU and this guy associates with known crims who carried out an attack and he tried to flee the country, what did you expect them to do?
> ...



I'm wondering if you're joking now... 

IF (and it's a BIG IF) this guy was released and did damage somehow, then I agree, we did the right thing. But his life is now RUINED and I would say he doesn't stand a chance in this country. Racism against middle easterners has juts got worse and this guy isn't even GUILTY (yet). 

So no - I DON'T AGREE!

But - on the same time - I actually think if media wasn't informed, his name was 100% supressed, his identity and location were kept secret - and he wasn't actually jailed - but more kept under house arrest (or hotel arrest until proven guilty) then I think we have something.

But the whole blimmin world knows who he is, pictures, names, family - everything. This guy is known only by association. How is that a safe and fair just system?

Instead we're breeding racism and propagandering terroism to some extent. Well done to this society, keep it up big boys... 

My last thread involving any form of the word racism was closed, so please keep it free of racist comments in here tho.

I really worry ofr a country that has so much power that we can mistreat humans to such an extent then toss them out on the street if they're innocent without as much as a sorry. 

Go watch In the Name of the Father and Catch a Fire and then re-comment on it - it's a very similar circumstance whether this man is guilty or not!


PS - I'm not whinging - I leave that for others, I'm just restating what I know and what I believe - and I think that media needs to be kept out of the loop so this guy, if innocent, has a chance of a real life again. If guilty, then sure, we all have a right ot know that we were treated by a GC Doctor who is a 'known' terrorist!


----------



## Dodie (Jul 13, 2007)

The only way that someone would get peeved off and attack our country would be because Howard is in bed with Bush and killing hundreds of thousands of innocent citizens in Iraq, last time I checked (a few months ago) there were 600, 000 INNOCENTS killed by the Western armies..

And you wonder why the terrorists keep popping up? western governments create them by trying to control their countries.. the more Iraqi blood that our 'protecters' spill the more they get peeved and want get back at us..


----------



## zobo (Jul 13, 2007)

well who are all the idiots who kept voting Howard over the last 10 years? NOT ME and that is how we have the ultimate power VOTE him out then.
jas


----------



## slim6y (Jul 13, 2007)

I don't know Zobo, I voted for Helen Clarke


----------



## Retic (Jul 13, 2007)

I agree Jason, people seem to want to have their cake and eat it. They want to live in a nice comfortable country but don't want the inconvenience of terrorists on the doorstep.
Everyone has rights under the law but in this time of fanatics and terrorists certain boundaries need to be extended. This doctor was leaving the country on a one way ticket without a word to his employers, anyone can see it is very suspicious. 
Should we let him go and allow him to leave the country and then find out we had the right man ? 
The Police Officer from the UK arrived days ago but as has been said there is an absolute mountain of files to go through.


----------



## salebrosus (Jul 13, 2007)

Is APS really that far out of reptile discussions that we have to keep discussing politics?

Simone.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jul 13, 2007)

Forensick said:


> you miss the most important pieces of evidence!
> firstly his name is Mohamed,
> secondly his skin is a funny colour
> thirdly, he was leaving an uninvolved country, for another univolved country with a one way ticket!
> ...



I also think this is a pretty silly way of looking at it. I think you will find there is a reason they held this man and not another Indian person. There are obvious links of concern, and in cases of a very serious nature like this one I believe it is better to be safe than sorry!!
ALSO People who suggest this is because of race or colour of skin are being very racist!!! If a white person arrests a black person, is this racist?? If you say it is you would be racist!!!


----------



## mrboajangles (Jul 13, 2007)

zobo said:


> Are you really serious????? what a load of rubbish anytime anything happens to people nowadays they all cry racism. (even if they are guilty).
> This is simply a matter of trying to sift through all the 20,000+ pages of info.
> Tell me this, how would you like it if this guy was released and went and blew up a major airport (like his associates tried to do) and killed off your whole family? All you civil libertarians would then be whinging WHY was he not kept in jail? who let him out? who's neck is on the chopping block now?
> The police etc are trying to protect YOU and this guy associates with known crims who carried out an attack and he tried to flee the country, what did you expect them to do?
> ...



I agree, Civil libartatians are a Joke!!! I recall a while ago we had some drug raids in some night clubs, I cant remember how many people got busted for possesion, but it was in the 100s. The civil libs came out and said to the police..."why dont you go and solve crime instead of picking on teens just out to have some fun". 
I was so annoyed with this comment, who are civil libs sticking up for crims or law abiding citizens??? They are a JOKE


----------



## slim6y (Jul 13, 2007)

johnbowemonie said:


> Is APS really that far out of reptile discussions that we have to keep discussing politics?
> 
> Simone.



To Greebo and Simone...

Isn't chit chat about chit chat?

If you don't like it don't you think it better not to reply? Just like TV, if you don't like what you're watching change channels


----------



## Isis (Jul 13, 2007)

Hmm I agree slim. I remember quite a few times that people wee howled down for asking the same thing......its chit chat......no one makes you open the thread. If you dont want to have a political discussion then dont.....hmmm again what happened to freedom of speech. Isnt chit chat for off topic discussions.


----------



## slim6y (Jul 13, 2007)

Careful of that freedom of speech thing - I got an infraction for using those exact words on here once... 

But yeah, Chit Chat is that... If I were to go to a reptile party (which I have never been too but if I did) I would chat about reptiles and other things becuase I do not like to be to narrow minded and I like to be able to expand on my conversation. Afterall, it's how you get to know people.

This topic was a bit of a dead one tho  We need a new motivational to ge tthings on the move!!!


----------



## Isis (Jul 13, 2007)

My opinion is better safe than sorry. The men that flew the planes into the WTC on 9/11 were all known as nice, quiet people. Look at the devastation they caused......the Bali bombers, the London ones. They were all decent people until..........

I dont care what race or religion. If in doubt, protect the masses.
As I said JMO


----------



## Beechy (Jul 14, 2007)

slim6y said:


> I'm wondering if you're joking now...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## slim6y (Jul 14, 2007)

No - it's not a science experiment with terrorist lab rats... it's a human life - I didn't once say he's not guilty... I just said he's already been given a guilty verdict without even going to court.

i am saying that - just like In The Name Of The Father and Catch A Fire there are similarities to this case.

Now, if media hadn't gone ahead and posted this mans picture and name all over the world, then, should he be innocent, then he can go back to his normal life with his one way ticket to Bangalore. 

Should he be proven guilty - then the whole world shoudl knwo what a heinous man he is and he should be given the full penalty of the law (not like reptile smugglers who get almost no penalty).

Yep - 40 years jail - no parole period - no chance to hurt people in the world... Or what ever it is that a supposed terrorist gets.

But he didn't deserve what he has got (just yet). And that's my point... Not that he's innocent, not that he's guilty - but he's guilty until proven innocent and that is unfair!!!


----------



## Jungle_Freak (Jul 14, 2007)

No stone should not be over turned and possible terrorist held too short of a time ,

untill all imformation clears anyone suspected of this activity,

Bali is still fresh in my mind ,


----------



## cockney red (Jul 14, 2007)

*Guilt by association, is preferable to doing nothing, and the possible ramifications. as for racism, these are the people who are blowing people up. FACT!! Plenty enough circumstantial evidence to keep him till hes classed safe.*


----------



## slim6y (Jul 14, 2007)

Are you sure your name is spelt correctly? Should the red be in the first part of the name? 

So on saying that racist little slur - all cockneys are whinging pomes? Would that be correct too?

So this guy is guilty right - he had a one way ticket to bangalore - he was of the right race and religion to be a terrorist... oh wait - IRA - are they muslims? nope...???

Oh - there could be other races that are terrorist you know?

These are the people blowing people up - FACT??? Really - have you re-read the stats on how many dead iraqi civilians there are - and iraqi people - all because America are 'blowing people up' (oh, and Australia and England).

Come on - see a bit of the light here - this guy may in fact be the worlds worst terrorist - but until you prove that don't jump to any conclusions like the media do.


----------



## Isis (Jul 14, 2007)

I agree dont name him and show his pic until found guilty. Fair enough, but hold him as long as needs to make sure they have it right. Then if hes guilty name him and shame him but people have been protected. If hes innocent let him go and know is any wiser. I have muslim friends that agree with this and have said that they can fully understand the paranoia, they too look sideways at some other muslims they know and dont want to risk anything like the attacks happening here.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 14, 2007)

C'mon guys he has been charged now and my spine was chilled when i heard what he has allegedly done. 

Can you imagine the destruction that could be caused by giving a sim card to the worng person??


----------



## Retic (Jul 14, 2007)

It is pretty absurd, it's like being able to detonate a bomb just by dialling a number on a mobile, as if that can be done.


----------



## Isis (Jul 14, 2007)

????? am i reading some sarcasm there boa. I hope so.


----------



## slim6y (Jul 14, 2007)

I never got any of those options with my mobile phone. i guess you have to buy a new one with updated features like "My Bombs" and "Recently Detonated Bombs". Mine only came with messages and caller ID 

Ooooh.. do the pick ups on the bombs have caller ID?

Still, what are some of these spine chilling things he's done waruikazi? 

'Reckless support'

Police will allege Gold Coast doctor Mohamed Haneef supported a terrorist organisation by "recklessly" giving his mobile phone SIM card to people planning car bomb attacks in the UK. 

"The specific allegation involves recklessness rather than intention," Australian Federal Police Commissioner Mick Keelty told reporters in Canberra today.

"The allegation being that he was reckless about some of the support he provided to that group, in particular the provision of his SIM card for the use of the group."

And I still stand by my original words that this man was named GUILTY before proven - well... before proven anything! He's being charged but hasn't been found guilty as of yet (I guess).


----------



## zobo (Jul 14, 2007)

well surprise surprise he has been charged, fancy that. Trust me what you see in the paper and news etc is not always exactly precise (make that rarely) and there is a lot more to it when someone gets charged with offences. The media only gets a little bit of the whole picture as many details are confidential. 
Also due to the circumstances he was obviously a flight risk if they had released him. 
jas


----------



## coxy (Jul 14, 2007)

Isis said:


> I agree dont name him and show his pic until found guilty. Fair enough, but hold him as long as needs to make sure they have it right. Then if hes guilty name him and shame him but people have been protected. If hes innocent let him go and know is any wiser. I have muslim friends that agree with this and have said that they can fully understand the paranoia, they too look sideways at some other muslims they know and dont want to risk anything like the attacks happening here.



Sounds good in theory, but i think it would be hard to keep it a secret.
The authorities need to question people in relation to it, they search his apartment, confiscate his car and computer for forensic reasons. Even if the authorities don't name him, people will catch on and figure it out and the media will find out somehow.


----------



## Retic (Jul 14, 2007)

Yes, extreme sarcasm.



Isis said:


> ????? am i reading some sarcasm there boa. I hope so.


----------



## Isis (Jul 14, 2007)

Unfortunately our media leave a lot ot be desired. I believe they should be made more accountable for their actions. I have heard of raids on places under the utmost secrecy and no one would be any the wiser.

I must say Im happy they did eventually find some evidence. And having some understanding of the legal issues there would have had to have been some pretty good evidence. He also new what the politiacl climate is like at present and perhaps should have been more thoughtfull about his actions and his associates given the paranoia that is felt throughout the world at the moment. It is well documented that even an inocent joke on an plane can land you in big trouble.


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 14, 2007)

Hypothetical:

I'm a medical professional who has been employed in the middle east due to a shortage of qualified medical practioners.

I get visa (professional) allowing me to stay for as long as I want because of my skills.

I decide I want to go to Australia to visit my relatives. Naturally no visa is required to go to Australia because I'm Australian.

I check prices on the internet and find the most cost effective way to travel to Australia is to buy a one way ticket - I'll buy the return ticket in Australia because it is a lot cheaper.

The police turn up on my doorstep and arrest me because I purchased a one way ticket stating this is an unusual practice.

I get held in a jail in the middle east (this is a hypothetical situation remember) pending charges.

Many days pass - the authorities just keep extending the maximum period they can detain me without charges because they state I might be a terrorist.

After almost 2 weeks, the authorities charge me for giving a sim card to a relative (it's much cheaper than giving him my phone) and I've got a phone I paid a couple of thousand dollars for.

Hypothetically, it is not me in this scenario, it is one of your relatives - or worse still your children.

Imagine the world without hypothetical situations..


----------



## Isis (Jul 14, 2007)

I dont have any relatives, friends or children that are linked to known terrorists.


----------



## grimbeny (Jul 14, 2007)

im not one of them!!!


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 14, 2007)

None that you know of


----------



## slim6y (Jul 14, 2007)

That last statement "Imagine the world without hyptohetical situations" is infact hypothetical???

Yes, all good points S_V - but... you forget one point... He's Indian, he must be guilty - look - everyone else said so!

Personally... I still hope he's found not guilty... he is certainly being charged with the lesser charge of recklessness which to me still assumes he's innocent of an actual crime but has done something stupid. Almost like giving your car keys to a drunk person and telling him to drive home...

This man could well be the next movie Daniel Day Lewis stars in. Well, I don't know what the police know - I'm not even sure the police know what they need to know - but how else can they keep him without charging him?


----------



## Isis (Jul 14, 2007)

Hmmm slim arent you just as guilty if you give your keys to a drunk friend and tell them to drive home and they kill somene on the way?


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 14, 2007)

Slimy, unfortunately he will be found guilty of something regardless. The authorities could not - and would not - let him go without charging him. Recklessness - if this is a jailable offense, I should be in jail. I've done so many reckless things in my life  I suppose it's what you define as being reckless..


----------



## Isis (Jul 14, 2007)

Have you reckless adventures killed hundreds of people.......Id say not. And I never once said anything about his race being what makes him guilty. Its the people he associates with nothing to do with his race color or creed


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 14, 2007)

Isis, I was only throwing a hypothetical situation out there 

This thread is far too sensitive for me to give an opinion. Interesting views by all though...


----------



## grimbeny (Jul 14, 2007)

guilty by assosciation, maybe were all guilty of murder. I mean someone has probably been murdered for somthing we wanted, whether its oil or crapy things made in china.


----------



## Bombie (Jul 14, 2007)

*terrorism*

i love all the references to in the name of the father as a comparison to this weeks situation with the gold coast doctor!
with almost 3,000 people killed in the troubles in northern ireland i am sure all their families would be happy to see any suspected terorists fully questioned and imprisoned until the truth is known. if this takes a week or two then so be it.
where do you draw the line with human rights, should all the associates of the 9/11 bombers have been let go on 12/9 because they weren't on the plane, or do the families of the dead deserve to expect fair justice for their loss.
yes, the suspects deserve the right to expect fair treatment but i also think the percentage of people wrongly detained is extremely small. for every david hicks and doctor mohamed haneef imprisoned awaiting questioning or trial there are hundreds or thousands put away every year for thier crimes.
no system is perfect but they do the best they can in our interests, and i think they deserve all the support we can give them. after all, it was a CORRUPT system that saw the guildford four put away in the first place, not just the system! 

anyway, that's just part of my rambling opinion.


----------



## mrmikk (Jul 14, 2007)

Well he has been charged now, let's see if he is convicted! 

Terrorism brings with it the need to employ a dynamic approach to our Westminster system of Govt. Don't get me worng I am all for the respect of an individual's civil liberties, but if someone has to 'cool their heels' in the watch house for awhile until Police gather enough evidence or otheriwse so be it. Terrorists won't cut you or I any slack, so neither should we, and we all have no choice but to sacrifice some of our freedoms as a result. Don't balme the Govt or the Police for this, blame the idiots who kill innocents in the name of religion.


----------



## grimbeny (Jul 14, 2007)

Its a big call to say its purely in the name of religion.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 14, 2007)

I think we would save more australian lives if we put all the energy and money that we are vesting into anti terrorism into drug and alcohol rehabilitation education and rehabilitation.

We are all so scared of being blown up but we all stand at a waaaaaaaaaaaay higher risk of being affected by adversly by drugs, alcohol, emo's etc.


----------



## grimbeny (Jul 14, 2007)

precicely waruikazi, but helping "drugos" doesnt win votes, punishing them does.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 14, 2007)

Don't forget the emo's.


----------



## zobo (Jul 14, 2007)

2 points I'd like to make......first is that it is in fact the terrorist's that are racist not us. They are the ones who hate all 'westerners' due to the actions of a few. I dont give a stuff what colour you are but as they say if you ly with dogs you get fleas. So the people you associate with will reflect on you.
Two is everyone is crying racist over this incident but not too long ago the same thing happened to a 'white' school teacher up here in Brissie but I guess because he was white it is not as good for the media idiots to sensationalise.
jas


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 14, 2007)

zobo said:


> I dont give a stuff what colour you are but as they say if you ly with dogs you get fleas. So the people you associate with will reflect on you.
> jas


 
Interesting... Just read a thread about a boa found in QLD on this forum. Turns out it was found during a drug bust. Does this mean all snake owners are druggies, or all druggies are snake owners


----------



## slim6y (Jul 15, 2007)

spilota_variegata said:


> Interesting... Just read a thread about a boa found in QLD on this forum. Turns out it was found during a drug bust. Does this mean all snake owners are druggies, or all druggies are snake owners



I took panadeine once - it contains codeine  

I won a snake (or two) too!

Ok - The references to In the Name of the Father - Were purely on the fact that these men were WRONGLY imprisoned for an act they didn't commit, but they were Irish. The similarity here is this man perhaps didn't actually commit a crime any more than you jay walking to see your cousin on the other side of the road.

Secondly - As far as terrorist being racist... I see your point, and yes, it does appear to be a hate crime. 

But i never ONCE felt sorry for Hicks other than his treatment. If what he did was in fact sympathise with terrorists (or what ever the actual charge was) then he deserved to go down for the crime. But he didn't deserve that detention he got with no actual charge - again, do we know the whole story???

And isn't Hicks a whitey too?

Now, if I gave my car keys knowingly to a drunk person to drive my car I'd say I'm guilty of recklessness - even if he doesn't kill someone on the way home.

But this is no worse than a friend letting a friend drive home after a few drinks - is it? 

This reckless charge sounds a bit like a joke - What it does sound like is a charge laid with minimal evidence in order to keep the prisoner on Australian shores until they can find new evidence to bring him to trial. Even if he is found guilty of recklessness - did he actually have ANY part in the failed bombing attempts? That's going to be a tough one for a jury to work out. So I will be very keen to see or hear about all the evidence that they have against this man.

The world can sleep easy for just one more night at least  (well, our world anyhow)


----------



## zobo (Jul 15, 2007)

spilota_variegata said:


> Interesting... Just read a thread about a boa found in QLD on this forum. Turns out it was found during a drug bust. Does this mean all snake owners are druggies, or all druggies are snake owners



Well I dont quite see your logic here, but what I meant is that if you associate with criminals expect to get in trouble with the law. The whole drugie/snake thing is irrelevant.


----------



## zobo (Jul 15, 2007)

Oh and I was not refering to HICKS, there was another Brisbane school teacher who was charged about 1 year ago (with bombs etc) . Guess it may not have even made news down south as he was just a white guy, but if he was middle eastern I'm sure the media would have made a circus out of it as usual.
jas


----------



## mrboajangles (Jul 15, 2007)

zobo said:


> Oh and I was not refering to HICKS, there was another Brisbane school teacher who was charged about 1 year ago (with bombs etc) . Guess it may not have even made news down south as he was just a white guy, but if he was middle eastern I'm sure the media would have made a circus out of it as usual.
> jas



I dont really think it matters what colour your skin is!!! Most of the IRA members would have white skin, they still get publicity!!!


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 15, 2007)

zobo said:


> Well I dont quite see your logic here, but what I meant is that if you associate with criminals expect to get in trouble with the law. The whole drugie/snake thing is irrelevant.



I wasn't trying to be logical. Only throwing another hypothetical out there. Let's say it was one of your relatives who got busted with the boa and only days before you loaned them your mobile or sim card as theirs got stolen. Imagine your surprise when the police arrest you saying you were implicated in the trafficking of drugs (because your phone had been traced to a drug transaction) - and worse still, while you are in jail awaiting a charge to be laid, Parks and Wildlife drop round your house and confiscate all your snakes because of your association with exotic reptiles. Where do we draw the line?


----------



## mrboajangles (Jul 15, 2007)

spilota_variegata said:


> I wasn't trying to be logical. Only throwing another hypothetical out there. Let's say it was one of your relatives who got busted with the boa and only days before you loaned them your mobile or sim card as theirs got stolen. Imagine your surprise when the police arrest you saying you were implicated in the trafficking of drugs (because your phone had been traced to a drug transaction) - and worse still, while you are in jail awaiting a charge to be laid, Parks and Wildlife drop round your house and confiscate all your snakes because of your association with exotic reptiles. Where do we draw the line?



I think selling drugs and being involved with a terrorist is slightly different!!! He is Involved that is known!!! but that does not mean he has done anything wrong!!! but he may have, and I want them to investigate that very carefully! and these things take alot of time!!!


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 15, 2007)

I'm not sure which is the lesser of two evils, terrorism or drug trafficking. Both terrorists and drug traffickers kill with no regard to the victims. I think drugs kill many more people than acts of terrorism. I agree he should be investigated thoroughly and if he is found guilty, punished harshly.


----------



## mrboajangles (Jul 15, 2007)

yes drugs are a massive problem!!! but they only affect people who choose to be affected(except for users families ofcourse) 
I choose not to use drugs therefor they will not kill me (unless a drugie stabs me for my 5 bucks)
but terrorists choose who they kill most if not all of them innocent!!!
BUT yes drugs are a huge problem i should of worded my post different!!


----------



## spilota_variegata (Jul 15, 2007)

I think you worded you post correctly. This thread is open to our opinions. I respect your opinion


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 15, 2007)

Our coalition forces are killing lots of people fighting for the freedom of their country. Does that make the coalition terrorists?


----------



## mrboajangles (Jul 15, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> Our coalition forces are killing lots of people fighting for the freedom of their country. Does that make the coalition terrorists?



I have often tthink the same thing?? are we doing more bad then good???


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 15, 2007)

I just wached the news, more Indian doctors houses have been raided and detained for questioning... My doctor is Indian and i have an Indian heritage, am i screwed?


----------



## mrboajangles (Jul 15, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> I just wached the news, more Indian doctors houses have been raided and detained for questioning... My doctor is Indian and i have an Indian heritage, am i screwed?



Yes, UNCLE HOWARD wants you out!!!
just kidding, I would say (and hope) they are only arresting people with some sort of link to him that may be a concern!!


----------



## mrmikk (Jul 15, 2007)

grimbeny said:


> Its a big call to say its purely in the name of religion.


 
Exactly right, although I am not the one using religion as an excuse to kill innocents.


----------



## zobo (Jul 15, 2007)

spilota_variegata said:


> I'm not sure which is the lesser of two evils, terrorism or drug trafficking. Both terrorists and drug traffickers kill with no regard to the victims. I think drugs kill many more people than acts of terrorism. I agree he should be investigated thoroughly and if he is found guilty, punished harshly.



Killing many innocent people and kids or selling drugs to halfwits dumb enough to take them.........mmmmm I think I know which one is the lesser of two evils!


----------



## zobo (Jul 15, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> I just wached the news, more Indian doctors houses have been raided and detained for questioning... My doctor is Indian and i have an Indian heritage, am i screwed?



I hope that is sarcasm as I am really over the whole racism thing.
I have family relatives from India, Bali, Germany and Australia and I have no fears at all of any of them being involved in the sort of crap this Doctor got himself into. 
jas


----------



## slim6y (Jul 15, 2007)

Didn't this doctor get himself involved by being a relative? 

Wow, we're all criminals - My brother ran a red light once - I should be charged!

Recklesness *shakes head*

"Muhammad Haneef, 27, was charged Saturday with providing support to a terrorist organization by giving his mobile phone SIM card to British suspects Sabeel and Kafeel Ahmed when he moved to Australia in July 2006. He faces a maximum of 15 years in prison if convicted."

"Haneef is a distant cousin of the Ahmed brothers, with whom he shared a house in Liverpool before moving to Australia for a job at a hospital on Queensland state's Gold Coast."

Now these two bits of editorial brilliance do not appear to label our Indian Doctor as a Doctor of Terror at all... 

I really can't honestly say we've done the right thing here (yet) - I don't think we're preventing a terrorist attack or further terrorism by jailing this guy. If anything, we're just fueling the fires!


----------



## mrmikk (Jul 16, 2007)

slim6y said:


> Didn't this doctor get himself involved by being a relative?
> 
> Wow, we're all criminals - My brother ran a red light once - I should be charged!
> 
> ...


 
Slimy,
I appreciate where you are coming from, particulalry if you have no legal background, this may seem like a 'clutching at straws' type of exercise, and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense. 

A lot of serious criminal offences in various Federal and State legislation have what are referred to as 'strict liability' clauses. In essence it removes the need for the prosecution to prove 'mens rea' or intent. Simply speaking it avoids someone recklessly doing an act or making an ommission without any thought what so ever for the consequences and later saying, "Really sorry, didn't mean (the mens rea/intention) for that to happy." 

Ultimately it puts the onus on all of us to some extent to be responsible for our acts/ommissions, which is not a bad thing when the results can potentially be serious, which I am sure everyone labels terrorist related activityies to be, SERIOUS.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

Exactly we are pouring petrol onto the flames of extremism. Extreme actions may be thwarted by some extreme laws but extremists will only be encouraged by them.


----------



## mrmikk (Jul 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> Exactly we are pouring petrol onto the flames of extremism. Extreme actions may be thwarted by some extreme laws but extremists will only be encouraged by them.


 
...and what is your alternative?


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

Diplomacy, not more extremism.


----------



## mrmikk (Jul 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> Diplomacy, not more extremism.


 
Do you really think someone who is so fanatical, who is willing to kill themselves and everyone else around them, regardless of their sex, age, religion, from babies to the elderly are wanting to sit at the negotiating table and 'talk' about issues with a view to reaching a mutually satisfying agreement? I don't thik so.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

mrmikk said:


> Do you really think someone who is so fanatical, who is willing to kill themselves and everyone else around them, regardless of their sex, age, religion, from babies to the elderly are wanting to sit at the negotiating table and 'talk' about issues with a view to reaching a mutually satisfying agreement? I don't thik so.



No not at all. And the fact that you think that is what i meant shows how badly your mind has been perforated by the propaganda forced upon you.

Terrorist cells/organisations are very well organised with a leadership hierarchy. The suicide bombers are no doubt too brain washed to listen to any kind of negotiations from the infidels. But the leaders of these organisations are far smarter than you think and imo would take a result that benefits them regardless wether it comes through an attack or diplomacy.


----------



## mrmikk (Jul 16, 2007)

waruikazi said:


> No not at all. And the fact that you think that is what i meant shows how badly your mind has been perforated by the propaganda forced upon you.
> 
> Terrorist cells/organisations are very well organised with a leadership hierarchy. The suicide bombers are no doubt too brain washed to listen to any kind of negotiations from the infidels. But the leaders of these organisations are far smarter than you think and imo would take a result that benefits them regardless wether it comes through an attack or diplomacy.


 
I am not interested in propaganda, and as I asked you, "...and what is your alternative?", you didn't exactly go into a detailed response in your reply, so how could I know what you meant?

I am glad you aren't responsible for developing and implementing policy relating to national security in this country.


----------



## slim6y (Jul 16, 2007)

mrmikk said:


> Slimy,
> I appreciate where you are coming from, particulalry if you have no legal background, this may seem like a 'clutching at straws' type of exercise, and I don't mean that in a derogatory sense.
> 
> A lot of serious criminal offences in various Federal and State legislation have what are referred to as 'strict liability' clauses. In essence it removes the need for the prosecution to prove 'mens rea' or intent. Simply speaking it avoids someone recklessly doing an act or making an ommission without any thought what so ever for the consequences and later saying, "Really sorry, didn't mean (the mens rea/intention) for that to happy."
> ...



It may SEEM like clutching at straws??? HAHA! I don't think it seems like it at all!

Consider this scenario then... You sell your mobile phone on E-Bay to a guy named Mohammed - he in turn then uses it to blow up a bomb killing 200 people - who's guilty?

I sold my last car to an Arab fellow - he was a nice guy. I never onece thought he'd use my car for a car bomb. But how reckless of me to sell it to him - he may one day speed and kill someone... that's stupid of me wasn't it? I was reckless.

This isn't even as stupid as it sounds, it's WORSE!


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

mrmikk said:


> I am not interested in propaganda, and as I asked you, "...and what is your alternative?", you didn't exactly go into a detailed response in your reply, so how could I know what you meant?
> 
> I am glad you aren't responsible for developing and implementing policy relating to national security in this country.



Is it me that makes you glad i am not a policy maker? Or is it the fact my idea involves tea tottling rather than gun tottling?


----------



## Colhunter (Jul 16, 2007)

Many innocent people have died , been severly crippled, mentally unstable for the rest of their lives and the list goes on, all because someone wants the status of being a mater after they die, or they have a problem with who ever happens to run the country they hate because they dont like the way they do things.
They say we live in a free country, i dont think so. We all have rules and regulations we have to abide by only we get it a little easier than some other countries do.
We are lucky enough to live in a country where the law protects innocent people to the best of their abilities, and in this case thats exactly what they are doing.
A man was suspicious so they took him into custody to protect US, The citizens of Australia. 
How would you have liked it if one of your family members were to be one of those innocent victims , all because the law let go a man who may have been suspicious and thought well we better let him go because he wasnt exactly the man who blew up the building.He may have supplied some stuff for the bombings but he wasnt the man who pulled the trigger. So lets let him go.
If he is innocent , he will be compinsated for being held. 
The law have their reasons for doing things, it may not sit right with everyone but thats the way this country does things. And i for one think they do a fantastic job. 
Its better to be safe than sorry.!!!!


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

Colhunter said:


> Many innocent people have died , been severly crippled, mentally unstable for the rest of their lives and the list goes on, all because someone wants the status of being a mater after they die, or they have a problem with who ever happens to run the country they hate because they dont like the way they do things.



I absolutely agree with this statement. And i wholly think western forces are encompassed by this point aswell.


----------



## salebrosus (Jul 16, 2007)

I'd rather this thread get closed than True Blue's thermostat thread.
Simple, this is Australia- if you come here and don't like the policies then piss off.
If your already here and don't like it then vote the Government out. 
Get over it!

Simone.


----------



## Colhunter (Jul 16, 2007)

Our forces are protecting us over seas by finding the people who are doing this to our countries. They are trying to stop these murderes so no more innocent people will die.
They are not out there randomly blowing up innocent people because they can.
If they get fired upon whilst overseas they will retaliate as would anyone who is being threatened. 
We have a right to be there because this is happenening to our country and we want it to stop!


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

Colhunter said:


> Our forces are protecting us over seas by finding the people who are doing this to our countries. They are trying to stop these murderes so no more innocent people will die.
> They are not out there randomly blowing up innocent people because they can.
> If they get fired upon whilst overseas they will retaliate as would anyone who is being threatened.
> We have a right to be there because this is happenening to our country and we want it to stop!



Ok. Do you live in the Middle East?


----------



## Colhunter (Jul 16, 2007)

No do u?
As a partner of a serviceman who has just returned from over there , i have seen and heard enough to know first hand what goes on and what doesnt. Do u believe everything you hear and read from the media?


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

Colhunter said:


> No do u?
> As a partner of a serviceman who has just returned from over there , i have seen and heard enough to know first hand what goes on and what doesnt. Do u believe everything you hear and read from the media?



Nope i live in Darwin. I definately do not beleive everything i hear in the Media. I also do not beleive we are any better off being an aggressor in fighting a war in the name of saving Australian lives, when more Aussies have been killed in/by that country after we started fighting it. In fact i thnk we are worse off for it and far less safe.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

But that is off topic and not what this thread is about.


----------



## Colhunter (Jul 16, 2007)

Aussies you say, how many aussies do u think have died over there? 
The soldiers go over there know exactly what they are doing, this is what they train for and they are prepared to take what ever comes along. They have more chance of surving than we civilians who arnt trained.
Isnt it better that we try and find these people who are killing us off?
We are not the agressor we are retaliating to protect australian people.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

How did Iraq threaten Australia?


----------



## Colhunter (Jul 16, 2007)

Im talking about Afgahanistan.
But our soldiers are restoring peace by building houses and schools and making things better. 
America started the war with Iraq fearing they had weapons of mass distruction and then taking down their leader who also himself killed many innocent victims. Iraqi citizens were thankful for that as it was their law who sentenced him to death.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

Ok i think Afghanistan may have been more justified than Iraq. 

Hrrmmm I suppose you are right Iraq is looking very peaceful ATM.


----------



## Jozz (Jul 16, 2007)

johnbowemonie said:


> I'd rather this thread get closed than True Blue's thermostat thread.
> Simple, this is Australia- if you come here and don't like the policies then piss off.
> If your already here and don't like it then vote the Government out.
> Get over it!
> ...


 
Exactly my thoughts!


----------



## flinders (Jul 16, 2007)

not all muslims are terrorists but all terrorists are muslims


----------



## Colhunter (Jul 16, 2007)

Originally Posted by *johnbowemonie* 

 
_I'd rather this thread get closed than True Blue's thermostat thread.
Simple, this is Australia- if you come here and don't like the policies then piss off.
If your already here and don't like it then vote the Government out. 
Get over it!

Simone._


If you dont like to read this thread than dont. No need to close it down when all it is is people voicing their different opinions. Im not trying to be rude in saying so i just dont know why you think people cant have their say whether you agree with it or not.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 16, 2007)

And i will now bow out of this thread. It's going to the dogs fast, even if it was partially my fault.


----------



## salebrosus (Jul 16, 2007)

Colhunter said:


> Originally Posted by *johnbowemonie*
> 
> 
> _I'd rather this thread get closed than True Blue's thermostat thread.
> ...



Probably because we've had to see the same crap being repeated over and over and the same people reminding everyone how much they can't stand Howard etc.etc.

The fact is decent arguments/discussions involving reptiles are continually locked while political ones are allowed to continue. This isn't a political forum, it's a reptile one.

Hell if i voiced my opinions i'd get a week holiday,

Simone.


----------

