The disturbing inference, which is seemingly confirmed by Mr Lam Paktsun's testimony, is that terrorism prosecutions are being driven not by a reliance on evidence but by a political imperative to obtain convictions. The effect of this was summed up by Mr Ul-Haque's former principal at North Sydney Boys High in his testimony to the court.  

A senior counter-terrorism officer with the Australian Federal Police has testified that police were directed to charge "as many suspects as possible" with terrorism offences in order to test the new anti-terrorism laws introduced in 2003. 

The admission was made by federal agent Kemuel Lam Paktsun, the senior case officer on the Operation Newport investigation that led to the arrest of Sydney medical student Izhar Ul-Haque, whose trial was sensationally dismissed in the NSW Supreme Court yesterday.  

Mr Lam Paktsun's startling testimony came during a pre-trial hearing on October 24 that has not previously been reported, when he was questioned about the circumstances of Mr Ul-Haque's arrest in April 2004.  

"At the time, we were directed, we were informed, to lay as many charges under the new terrorist legislation against as many suspects as possible because we wanted to use the new legislation," he testified.  

"So regardless of the assistance that Mr Ul-Haque could give, he was going to be prosecuted, charged, because we wanted to test the legislation and lay new charges, in our eagerness to use the legislation."  

The frank admission was made under cross-examination during a hearing to test the admissibility of two AFP interviews conducted with Mr Ul-Haque, who was charged with receiving training from the terrorist organisation Lashkar-e-Toiba in January and February 2003.  

The case against Mr Ul-Haque was dismissed yesterday in the NSW Supreme Court when judge Michael Adams found the conduct of two ASIO officers who interviewed Mr Ul-Haque prior to his formal AFP interviews had been "grossly improper and constituted an unjustified and unlawful interference with the personal liberty of the accused".  

Charge Suspects To Test Terror Laws

from Crikey ….. 

The disturbing case of Izhar Ul-Haque: your laws at work 

Greg Barns writes: 

When the Howard government and its allies in the ALP fell over each other in their mad scramble to pass draconian anti-terror laws, there were some wise heads warning that such legislation would open the door to abuse by law enforcement and security authorities of their powers. Well guess what – surprise, surprise – it’s happened. 

The decision handed down by NSW Supreme Court judge Michael Adams concerning the case of Izhar Ul-Haque makes for disturbing reading. It’s a case of ASIO officers scaring the bejesus out of an individual in their quest for a result.  

Izhar Ul-Haque was charged with training with an alleged terrorist organisation in Pakistan in 2003. ASIO interviewed him three times in late 2003, early 2004 about the matter.  

Justice Adams chronicles a disturbing level of intimidation and aggression used repeatedly by ASIO to try and break the will of Mr Ul-Haque. 

How’s this for example. “At 7.25pm on 6 November 2003, twenty or so ASIO and four or five police officers, all in plain clothes, attended with a search warrant at the home where the accused lived with his parents and three brothers.” Yes, it’s not a misprint – twenty five or more Federal Police and ASIO officers go to this man’s home. What were they expecting to find there – a nuclear arsenal? 

The boys from ASIO met Mr Ul-Haque and his 17-year-old brother in a railway station car park on that November day. They told Mr Ul-Haque he was in serious trouble, bundled him into a car, took him to a local park and forced him to answer questions. They took his frightened brother along as well – an action described by Justice Adams as "highhanded". 

And here’s what Justice Adams thought of the spooks taking Mr Ul-Haque to a park: “The officers were dealing with a young man of twenty-one years. It is obvious that any citizen of ordinary fortitude would find a peremptory confrontation of the kind described by the ASIO officers frightening and intimidating. Furthermore, the fact that he was being taken to a park rather than any official place would have added an additional unsettling factor. I do not think it can be doubted that this was precisely the effect that was intended.”  

And despite having no authority to do so, the ASIO officers gave Mr Ul-Haque the distinct impression that he had to cooperate with them and answer their questions. If he did not, he reasonably assumed they might beat him up or take him to another sinister location. 

Then the ASIO officers took him back to his home, kept him in his parents' bedroom and proceeded to interview him again until 3.45 the next morning. None of which impressed Justice Adams who observed, “To my mind, to conduct an extensive interview with the accused, keeping him incommunicado under colour of the warrant, was a gross breach of the powers given to the officers under the warrant.

“ No doubt those commentators like Janet Albrechtsen at The Australian will complain that Justice Adams is an interfering busybody and a dreaded judicial activist. But most sensible people would say – thank goodness for gutsy judges prepared to expose rampant abuses of power by the state. 

And maybe now our politicians will see with their own beady eyes the post-9/11 monster they have created. 

and …..

Does ASIO want the help of Australian Muslims? 

Irfan Yusuf writes: 

Izhar al-Haque is an exception to the rule. He willingly handed his jihadi training documents to the authorities. He did this years before any prosecution or ASIO interrogation were on the horizon.  

Most terror suspects find themselves in the dock thanks to information provided to the authorities from external sources. Well, not quite external sources. Generally the information comes from people within their congregations. People who attend their mosques. Muslim people.

Ordinary citizens who just happen to observe the requirements of their faith to some extent. And who regard it as their religious duty to ensure their families and neighbours and nation are secure from "fitna" and "fasad" (words used in Arabic, Turkish, Urdu and other languages commonly spoken by huge chunks of the Islamic world to describe chaos and terror). 

I wonder whether they’ll be so willing after reading for months about the Haneef investigation that revealed AFP investigators having little or no understanding of basic aspects of South Asian cultures. AFP investigators who didn’t realise that Urdu (not "Udo" as they put it) was the name of a language. And now they find the prosecution of the future-Dr Haque has been thrown out after ASIO agents were accused of engaging in kidnapping and the evidence they gathered largely inadmissible. Add to this revelations that AFP agents were directed to charge as many people as possible with a view to testing the new beefed-up anti-terrorism laws.  

I’ll bet many ordinary Aussies who tick the "Muslim" box on their census forms are feeling very alarmed. So will many of their neighbours and friends who tick other boxes or no box in particular.  

Millions have been spent to "beef up" security. And what has been achieved? Failed prosecution after failed prosecution. And a bunch of ABC comics getting through APEC security barricades worth millions. But heck, why should the Federal Government care? After all, it’s not their money that’s being spent. It’s our money.  

And it’s our security being compromised as our intelligence services don’t behave in an intelligent fashion. The only thing standing in the way of botched-up intelligence is an independent judiciary. We can thank God/G-d/Allah/Khudah/etc for that. But when it comes to our counter-terrorism services, we should be very alarmed.  

I hope that, in the event of a real terrorist plot, they are far more alert.

elsewhere …. 

The NSW Government is to make permanent a host of powers that the police gained only temporarily in the wake of the 2005 Cronulla riot. 

The temporary powers included the ability of the police to close bars and hotels, to stop and search vehicles and people, to seize cars and phones and to disperse mobs. 

These powers were due to expire in December. 

The powers are now to be made permanent, and expanded, Police Minister David Campbell said. 

Police will be given specific powers enabling them: 

* to stop vehicles they suspect are travelling to a location where public disorder is brewing; and

* to seize and detain any item police believe might be likely to assist in preventing or controlling public disorder. 

There is also provision for these powers to be subject to review and scrutiny by the Ombudsman when they are used, Mr Campbell said. 

As part of these powers, the State's Terrorism (Police Powers) Act is to be updated and expanded, to give police powers to search vessels and aircraft without warrants when searching for suspects, NSW Attorney-General John Hatzistergos said. 

Police Riot Powers Stay

The Australian Federal Police believed charging a Sydney medical student, Izhar ul-Haque, with a terrorism offence would encourage him to turn informant for them, documents and testimony before the Supreme Court show. 

The motivation behind Mr ul-Haque's arrest revealed in the documents was backed by the actions of federal officers, including an illegal visit to Goulburn's Supermax prison to urge him to help them soon after he was charged. 

Justice Adams's scathing judgment was humiliating for counter-terrorism officials, but testimony and documents revealed in pre-trial transcripts shed light on why they pursued the charge against Mr ul-Haque, even though he was repeatedly assured by spies and police that his brief attendance at a Lashkar-e-Taiba camp was not a big concern. Agents Tried To Turn Student Into Informer