| Sports |
By KATHERINE WILSON
Farcical terror trials
ACCORDING to statements in the Law
Council of Australia’s latest report, the “Kafkaesque” and
“Alice in Wonderland” case against Dr Mohamed Haneef rivals the
“farce” of David Hicks’ trial under the US military commissions.
But the Hicks and Haneef cases are not the first instances of
what appears to be selective leaking, spin doctoring, police
bungling and abuse of executive power in Australian terror
trials.
In 2005, on the morning Australia’s radical WorkChoices
legislation was introduced into federal Parliament, nine Muslim
men were arrested in Melbourne, coinciding with arrests of seven
Muslim men in Sydney.
Although magistrate Reg Marron later said there was little
evidence to connect the Melbourne and Sydney groups, police and
politicians in both cities announced an “imminent terrorist
attack” had been thwarted thanks to new terror law amendments.
These had been hastily sewn up a few days earlier, when it was
announced by the prime minister on Nov 2, 2005, that:
“The Government has received specific intelligence and police
information this week which gives cause for serious concern
about a potential terrorist threat ... the immediate passage of
this bill would strengthen the capacity of law enforcement
agencies to effectively respond to this threat.”
Upon the arrests, saturation news of “the biggest
counter-terrorism operation in Australia’s history” eclipsed
that of the new workplace laws.
But then it emerged that no weapons or plans were found among
the nine Melbourne men. And despite the hyperbole, the suspects
were not charged with planning a terrorist attack. Instead, the
men were imprisoned in the maximum-security Acacia Unit at
Barwon Prison, an hour from Melbourne, charged with membership
of a terrorist organisation.
Which terrorist organisation? It then emerged that the alleged
organisation was not a listed, named or specific one, but
consisted of the accused men themselves.
Among other prejudicial and speculative claims, the prosecution
claimed outright that one suspect had two years beforehand, when
19 years old, held a conversation that included the words
“suicide bomber”.
The conversation, with notorious Muslim spiritual adviser Abdul
Nacer Benbrika, was recorded by the Australian federal police (AFP).
It was soon revealed in court, however, that the conversation
had not contained these words.
In another confusing situation reminiscent of Haneef’s diary
entry bungles, the Melbourne Magistrates Court was also told
that an undercover police agent “of Middle-Eastern heritage” had
“befriended” the group “by pretending he shared similar
beliefs”.
The agent then allegedly showed the men how to use explosives.
The court was told “that the only explosion connected to the
group was detonated by authorities”.
So where is the evidence of the “imminent terror attack” the
media screamed about?
It would be interesting to examine it, as we can Haneef’s police
statement, but two years later, the Melbourne men are still
awaiting trial, kept largely shackled in isolation at Barwon
Prison, and denied bail, because – unlike Haneef – “exceptional
circumstances” cannot be found.
In the Jack Thomas case, a Channel 7 camera crew parked at dawn
outside the Williamstown home in which he and his family,
including his elderly mother-in-law, were sleeping. The crew was
there to film police storming into the house with guns and dogs.
Through a “leak” by the AFP or another government source,
Channel 7 was informed of the arrests before Thomas or his
lawyers. Thomas’ lawyer, Robert Stary, says he has evidence of
this.
(In Thomas’ account, the police handcuffed him inside, before
removing the handcuffs and re-fastening them in front of the
cameras. It is difficult to verify his account, because cameras
were not rolling inside.)
These are just two examples of what could be viewed as an
emerging pattern of selective leaking and pre-trial smearing on
the part of the Commonwealth. Little wonder Haneef’s lawyer did
his own leaking in an attempt to redress the balance before
things got out of hand.
Other parallels with the Haneef case are emerging, too: in the
same way it decided to slap a control order on Thomas after an
appeals court overturned convictions against him, the Howard
government revoked Dr Haneef’s visa after bail was granted.
In both cases, some charges are based on speculative and
tangential evidence: during Thomas’ trial, AFP agent Rinzi
Jabbour admitted to the court there was “no direct evidence”
that Thomas was planning terror activities, but that he
“believed” Thomas “intended” to become a terror “resource”.
Although it’s generally acknowledged that the risk of terrorism
in Australia has been heightened since its participation in the
Iraq war, it is also recognised that it remains very unlikely.
But if these kinds of politicised antics persist – even if real
evidence of terrorist activity surfaces in these or other cases
– then the public’s confidence in the justice process will have
been undermined by a government that is seen to consistently cry
wolf, promote trial by media and ignore the rule of law in
Australian terror trials.
Now, as foreign minister Alexander Downer so adeptly said:
“Every time there is somebody arrested and facing charges,
there’s some sort of controversy about ‘oh the poor thing, he
must be innocent, this is all being cooked up for some
particular reason’.” – newmatilda
Note: The writer is a mother,
scholar and civic journalist.
 
|
