Thread: Presumption Of Innocence

Originally Posted by Gra

go for using the masses to subvert the govt

Nuh! Gra's gone too!

P

Ya all know what the problem is people?....

So dont do it......

Also, be nice to ya Mom and ya Pa.

Hi Dr Phil

I have been following this thread with great interest as it inexorably moved from the general (legal system basis) to the specific (Dr. Haneef) and as much as it pains me ( ) I do believe Dazzler has the right of it so far. The man was detained under suspicion and released when the evidence did not support the detention. That's how the system works.

Thanks Bloke

The media is going ape over here at the moment which is amusing.

The media, through its manipulation, confuse the hell out of everybody with what is a fairly simple situation.

The simple state is that occasionally there is sufficient intelligence/rumours/circumstantial evidence surrounding someone that the investigators need time to sort out what the hell is going on and whether or not there is a serious/imminent threat to the public.

The presumption of innocence (this threads title ) is and always remains with the accused however the media immediately tag the person in detention as being guilty. It always peeves me when you hear the police stating after an arrest that "they have busted a large drug ring" etc because it suggests guilt.

What makes me laugh is all the concern over these laws when our taxation laws have compellability within them. Get called in for a tax audit and you have no right to silence and commit an offence if you dont answer truthfully when questioned. And no one says a word about it and we're talking money not bodies.

The National Crime Authority can compel witnesses to answer questions but still no-one whines. Beats me.

The sad thing is if you ask the knockers of the legislation where there was suspicion of a possible, imminent "terrorist act" and the investigators dont have enough to arrest the offender just what alternative they would employ to stop it. The fact is without the legislation there is nothing you can do. Unless someone has another answer.

The legislation buys time while quarinteening the suspect.

cheers

dazzler

G'day,

I'm going to wade in here and add my 2¢, after all why the hell not?

As I see it, if some boofhead get's the attention of the AFP for terrorism, then there must be fair grounds for them to investigate. Why say sorry? Stuff that. Let him back in?

What also gets my anger up is the bleeding hearts Civil Lib mob (not saying anyone contributing here is one at all) get on the news and carry on with their hoohah that someone suspected of terrorism should walk free regardless. ! But that's another rant.

I refer the learned assembly to the interview on the 7:30 report and the revelation that all of the disclosures by the minister were already on the public record. Nothing new by the minister. Edited from transcripts to prove his case and leaves out counterbalancing recorded converstions. A court of law threw it out. The Minister doesnt have to be fair, he has to use his own judgement. If he is biased, bad luck to the victim.

As previously stated, another Children Overboard. Lies half truth and spin. Personally I think the row between Scotland Yard and the AFP is much more fun.

The government shouldnt have been so hard on the media, the media are getting there own back.

Now lets see what the government scanners will make of this post!

Sebastiaan

Originally Posted by Waldo

What also gets my anger up is the bleeding hearts Civil Lib mob (not saying anyone contributing here is one at all) get on the news and carry on with their hoohah that someone suspected of terrorism should walk free regardless.

Sorry Waldo but suspician is just that. It is not a fact. If we run our legal system on suspicion then we approach the 1984 scenario. Post modernism gone mad.

Sebastiaan

(bleeding hearts liberal, believes in truth, not mob rule)

Originally Posted by Sebastiaan56

Sorry Waldo but suspician is just that. It is not a fact. If we run our legal system on suspicion then we approach the 1984 scenario. Post modernism gone mad.

Sebastiaan

(bleeding hearts liberal, believes in truth, not mob rule)

Further to the above.. See this in the age today

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...647903672.html

that is scary. If it is true it might get me off my !@#$ to write a letter to my local member again.

Gra,

Let me take you back a little:

Was I the only long haired student in the late 60's/early70's who lived with a bunch of other students who were "obviously suspicious types"?

I lived in a house with between five and seven others, and it was not an uncommon event for us to be literally hauled out of bed an paraded in the front yard at 2 o'clock in the morning while our place was "searched" for evidence of draft dodgers. I thought it was the Federal Police, but since they've only been in existence for a few years apparently, I'm really quite confused, they wore blue (or was it khaki? It was always dark!). All I know is when I walk barefoot at night on cold wet grass I get flashbacks!

No one in our house was a draft dodger, three had actually deferred until after completing their degrees, the rest of us were waiting for our number to be called, but because we looked like terrorists, we were treated accordingly. Heaven knows what the press vultures would make of it today.

If they found a Penthouse magazine (banned in Qld in those days) charges were threatened and the "evidence" taken, but nothing ever happened. We suspected for a time they timed the raids so they could get the latest issue.

I once witnessed a hit-run accident and reported it at Police headquarters. I was taken into a room and questioned about my record (I didn't have one), including the number of times I'd been caught drink driving. I don't drink, so thought that was a no-brainer, but the polite officer advised me that the offence was "alcohol or a drug". Now since I didn't do drugs either, it was all I could do not to get just a tad stroppy, but since I looked like a "duck"....(admittedly I may have known a few "ducks" as well!)

Times haven't changed.

It's just deja vu again.

In the meanwhile Good Morning Australia's poll has 84% reckoning he shouldn't be given his visa back, so that settles it I guess!

Harrummphhhf!!

P

Originally Posted by bitingmidge

Gra,

Let me take you back a little:

Was I the only long haired student in the late 60's/early70's who lived with a bunch of other students who were "obviously suspicious types"?

I lived in a house with between five and seven others, and it was not an uncommon event for us to be literally hauled out of bed an paraded in the front yard at 2 o'clock in the morning while our place was "searched" for evidence of draft dodgers. I thought it was the Federal Police, but since they've only been in existence for a few years apparently, I'm really quite confused, they wore blue (or was it khaki? It was always dark!). All I know is when I walk barefoot at night on cold wet grass I get flashbacks!

No one in our house was a draft dodger, three had actually deferred until after completing their degrees, the rest of us were waiting for our number to be called, but because we looked like terrorists, we were treated accordingly. Heaven knows what the press vultures would make of it today.

If they found a Penthouse magazine (banned in Qld in those days) charges were threatened and the "evidence" taken, but nothing ever happened. We suspected for a time they timed the raids so they could get the latest issue.

Times haven't changed.

In the meanwhile Good Morning Australia's poll has 84% reckoning he shouldn't be given his visa back, so that settles it I guess!

Harrummphhhf!!

P

Exactly my point, it shouldn't have happened to you, in fact you would now days have a case of harassments against them. Do we want the police to legally have the ability to do this. I certainly don't. As the old saying goes "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

As for giving his Visa back, I reserve my judgment until ALL of the evidence is released, we are only getting the bits that they want to release. Most things taken out of context can be made to look bad by a spin Dr. Take this thread as has been shown above everyone who has participated could have what they have said taken out of context and have it used against them..

Gra,

No point in writing to mine, she's quitting at the next election, I think I might re instate my claim of Aus becoming a fascist state (sorry Midge). Im sure there are still photos of me in ASIO files for attending a meeting after Whitlam was illegally sacked. Add a couple of posts and..... well I am a suspicious character arent I?

I can be surveyed with out anyone except the secret police knowing, siezed and held with no notification to my family, probably rendered, slandered by pollies under priviledge, crucified by the media, etc etc. Ya gotta love the lowest common denominator politics that keeps bidding up law and order.

Midge, I missed out on the draft by one year, Im sure they still have my photo from the moratrium marches as well.

Sebastiaan

Originally Posted by Gra

Further to the above.. See this in the age today

http://www.theage.com.au/news/nation...647903672.html

that is scary. If it is true it might get me off my !@#$ to write a letter to my local member again.

Yep, that is crap.

There are occasions where speed to get the information is paramount and perhaps there should be an interim approval where approval can be granted by those nominated but it should be brought before a magistrate within 24 or 48 hours as it is going to be tested in the courts later anyway .

It also allows laziness and a shotgun approach to investigations to creeep in .

not needed

Originally Posted by Gra

. Take this thread as has been shown above everyone who has participated could have what they have said taken out of context and have it used against them..

how could you take out of context my original post ? pretty black and white to me... lol!!!