Posted on 07/15/2007 4:15:53 PM PDT by Dundee
FACED with hostile media questions about the laws governing the detention of Mohammed Haneef last week, Attorney-General Philip Ruddock cut to the chase. "I tell you," Ruddock shot back, "you would be asking me different kinds of questions if these inquiries were truncated unnecessarily and some terrible event happened in Australia. You'd be after me unmercifully." Dr Mohamed Haneef
Ruddock is absolutely right. His response goes to the weakest of the many weak points in the soft Left polemic against the Government's anti-terror laws and how they were applied in the Haneef case. And it's this: these laws are not only designed to catch and punish the ideological criminals who commit acts of terror. They are also designed to protect the community against those acts being carried out before they happen. ...the presumption of innocence, a fact emphasised repeatedly by Australian Federal Police commissioner Mick Keelty.
Keelty and his AFP officers have acted entirely in accordance with the anti-terror laws passed by federal parliament. Too bad that in doing their job they have become collateral damage at the hands of critics attempting to paint Haneef as the victim of legislation that threatens the rights of all Australians. Surely, though, any fair assessment of those laws must weigh the rights of Haneef and others like him against another pre-eminent right: that of people to life itself...
It is this point that is conveniently overlooked by those groups opposed to the Government's anti-terror laws. Why? Because... the laws simply represent a camouflage vehicle to attack Howard himself...
(Excerpt) Read more at theaustralian.news.com.au ...
Willis Carto at it again??
They still around?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.