Former terror suspect Mohamed Haneef wants to return to Australia to attend a full judicial inquiry into his case, his lawyer says. 

Peter Russo said he would speak to Dr Haneef today to discuss his future after his return home to Bangalore, India, from the annual Muslim holy pilgrimage to Mecca. 

But Mr Russo said the former Gold Coast-based doctor had already indicated he wanted to attend the inquiry and was keen to find out when it would be held. 

Haneef Wants To Attend Inquiry - Lawyer

from Crikey ….. 

Could the real Mick Keelty please stand up? 

Greg Barns writes: 

Are there two Mick Keeltys?  

Last night a man calling himself Mick Keelty and claiming to be the Australian Federal Police Commissioner told a Sydney audience that he wants a black-out of all media coverage of terrorism investigations and cases. This Mr Keelty claims that police records of interviews are being leaked to the media to help the person under investigation get public sympathy. And this Mr Keelty thinks there should be a secret society of editors that he and his fellow security agency heads can brief, on an off-the-record basis, so that matters are set straight. 

Now, let’s turn to the other person who calls himself Mick Keelty and who also claims to be the nation’s top cop. This is the Mick Keelty who revels in media publicity about terrorism cases, whose organisation leaks to the media and who runs a police force which wrongly accused a Gold Coast Indian doctor of terrorism offences (besmirched his name in the media in the meantime).  

Could the real Mick Keelty please stand up? Is it the man calling for media black-outs and secret briefings, or is it the man who uses the media relentlessly to chase his quarry? The evidence suggests it’s the latter. 

Take this story from the Daily Telegraph on 1 August 2007. Headed "Keelty’s Haneef SIM claim gaffe", the story quoted Keelty from a media conference that day claiming that the SIM card Dr Haneef had given his cousin was located in the vicinity of London, where police foiled an attempted terrorist attack. That wasn’t true of course -- the SIM card was found in Liverpool.  

And then there was the Sunday July 22 splash across a number of Sunday news papers claiming Haneef might have been planning to blow up a Gold Coast apartment block. The story breathlessly told us that "Investigators said they believed some of the photos [of Haneef and his family in front of an apartment block] might not be ordinary tourist snapshots." Keelty denied the accuracy of the story, but the damage was done, and it’s unlikely that the story was leaked by anyone other than someone on the Haneef investigation team. 

Remember also that when Dr Haneef was arrested the picture painted by Mick Keelty and the Howard government was that he had caught the flight in a hurry after hearing that his cousin in the UK was in the spotlight over an alleged attempted terrorism plot. The reality was quite different – Dr Haneef had booked his flight previously and was going home to see his wife and new baby. 

And don’t forget that the AFP worded up the media in the early hours of Saturday July 14 last year that Haneef was going to be charged that day, and Keelty called a media conference in Canberra to announce that to the world. 

As for the other Mick Keelty – the one on show last night, well one assumes it wasn’t a serious speech. Is Australia’s most senior law enforcement officer suggesting that the AFP should not be scrutinised by journalists like Hedley Thomas, who won a Walkley for exposing the folly of the Haneef case? Does he really think that in a democracy it's ok for law enforcement agencies to expect the media to accept the veracity of every action taken by them?  

The idea that Keelty and his colleagues should be allowed to brief editors of media outlets on a secret basis in terrorism investigations, while at the same time preventing lawyers acting on behalf of those being investigated speaking to the media, is so absurd, that one wonders if this man has really lost the plot.

Australia's foreign affairs department is unsure who represented it at a meeting in 2001 when the possible rendition of Mamdouh Habib was discussed, a Senate committee has been told. 

And it played no role in telling the United States that Australia did not want one of its citizens held overseas being rendered, or sent to a third country for interrogation. 

It was revealed during parliamentary hearings last week that senior Australian government officials learnt during a meeting with US authorities in Pakistan on October 22 2001 that the Sydney father of four might be rendered. 

Mr Habib was captured in Pakistan in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the United States. The possibility of him being transferred to Egypt by another government was discussed at the end of a meeting in Canberra about unrelated policy issues the next day, October 23, 2001. 

At a Senate estimates hearing on Monday, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade revealed that while it had someone present at the October 23 meeting, it had not been able to work out who it was. 

DFAT deputy secretary Doug Chester told the hearing that the department had "no record" of who was there. "We haven't been able to find out who it was," he said. At the meeting, government officials, including then ASIO director-general Dennis Richardson, decided that the rendition of Mr Habib should not be allowed to take place.

Jennifer Rawson, from DFAT's international security division, said Mr Richardson had not been asked who from DFAT was at the meeting.
She agreed to a request from Australian Greens Senator Kerry Nettle to ask Mr Richardson, now Australia's ambassador to the US, that question.
It was also revealed last week that it was Mr Richardson who was charged with passing that information on to the US. 

DFAT on Monday confirmed it had played no role in informing the US it did not want the Australian citizen being sent to Egypt for interrogation.
Asked if any action had been taken following the meeting, Ms Rawson said: "There was no record of action subsequent to that." "We were aware though ... ASIO (would be) advising US authorities of the government's decision." 

Asked why DFAT chose not to get involved, Ms Rawson replied: "I can say the Australian government's position had been conveyed by a senior official of the Australian government to a range of US agencies at a senior level."
Mr Habib was detained in Pakistan before being transferred to Egypt and then the US military camp at Guantanamo Bay in Cuba.

DFAT Clueless About Habib Rendition Meet

Mamdouh Habib is the Sydney bloke who came to Australia from Egypt 24 years ago, married the daughter of Lebanese migrants, fathered four children, became an Australian citizen and opened a cleaning business and a coffee shop in Lakemba.  

He spent years under surveillance by Australian security, travelled to Pakistan in July 2001, was picked up there three months later, flown secretly to Egypt by the Americans for "interrogation" in November 2001, transferred in chains to the US military's Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba in May 2002, and released and flown home in January 2005. 

At no time was Habib, a devout Muslim, ever charged with anything. 

Kerry Nettle is the 34-year-old NSW Greens senator elected in 2001, who has spent the better part of five of her six years in the Senate trying to learn what the Howard government knew about Habib's detention in Pakistan in 2001 and his subsequent illegal "rendition" to Egypt for six months by the US Central Intelligence Agency.  

The Senate two days ago completed its latest round of estimates hearings. What Nettle learned from persistent questions to senior bureaucrats was the former government and its advisers knew everything and did nothing for Habib in Egypt or to protest to Washington. 

Abandonment Of Habib Is A Tale Of Shame

from Crikey .....

Should Kevin Andrews be personally liable if he's defamed Haneef?

Greg Barns writes:

DEFAMATION LAW, KEVIN ANDREWS, MOHAMED HANEEF

Now that Kevin Andrews has been hit with a writ from lawyers acting on behalf of former Gold Coast doctor and wrongfully accused terror suspect Mohammed Haneef he will no doubt ask Attorney-General Robert McClelland to pay the any settlement or damages payout and his legal costs.

According to parliamentary regulations, Mr Andrews can write to Mr McClelland requesting financial assistance for legal costs, damages awarded against him and settlement costs.

In 2008-09, Canberra spent more than $155,000 on ministers' legal costs. According to The Australian, more than $122,000 went towards funding Philip Ruddock's legal battle with an asylum-seeker, Ali Reza Sadiqi.

But should Mr Andrews be held personally liable if he has defamed Dr Haneef?

Dr Haneef intends suing for false imprisonment and defamation. Mr Andrews will have to convince Mr McClelland that the claims against him fit the Commonwealth guidelines for ministerial indemnity.

His actions must have related "to actual or alleged performance or non-performance of Ministerial duties and", that he must have acted "reasonably and responsibly in relation to the matters that gave rise to the proceedings," or show that the proceedings only arise because Andrews "was the holder of the office of Minister."

While the matter of Dr Haneef's false imprisonment would be covered by these guidelines - Andrews detained Dr Haneef by cancelling his visa after he was granted bail by a Brisbane magistrate in 2007 - what about the defamation?

Should politicians be allowed to spray off at the mouth about political opponents or other people for political advantage and expect the taxpayer to foot the bill if they are sued for defamation?

This very issue was examined by the South Australian Auditor-General back in 1998. The State's then Treasurer Rob Lucas had made statements about then Independent MP and now Senator Nick Xenophon in an electorate brochure. The topic was electricity privatization and Xenophon said Lucas had defamed him. Lucas settled the matter with an apology and payment of $20,000 to Xenophon. That payment and Lucas's legal fees were paid for by the South Australian taxpayer.

Auditor General Trevor Griffin took a critical look at the payment, and when it was appropriate for ministers to be able to seek indemnity from the state where they are sued in defamation proceedings. He concluded:

It is important that political leaders not be improperly exposed to risk of liability in defamation matters. Nonetheless, they do not have a licence to defame other members of the community at public expense. The guidelines should be such as to provide assurance that a publicly funded indemnity will only be available where the Minister has acted reasonably and responsibly and the act giving rise to the claim was a reasonable means of performing his/her duties in the interests of the State.

Perhaps this line of reasoning was what drove Tasmanian Premier David Bartlett earlier this year to unusually refuse a request for indemnity from Doug Parkinson, the government's Leader in the Upper House who is being sued by former government staffer Nigel Burch for comments Parkinson made about Burch in 2008.

So should Kevin Andrews be shielded from personal liability for actions and comments he took and made about Dr Haneef back in 2007? If you take the South Australian Auditor-General's sensible guide then the answer is no. Mr Andrews' conduct during the Haneef matter was driven purely by political concerns. It is certainly arguable that his constant linking in his statements of Dr Haneef to terrorism was at the very least not supported by the evidence he had available to him.

Mr. McClelland might like to hold Mr. Andrews out as an example to other politicians in Canberra by refusing an indemnity for defamation.