←

→

Another day, another bungle

July 23rd, 2007 | Austrolabe | News

Yesterday, there were reports quoting anonymous sources that Dr Haneef had allegedly been planning a local terrorist attack. These were subsequently dismissed as false by the head of the Australian Federal Police.

Today, we read in The Australian that the Australian Federal Police had written the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef’s diary and then proceeded to challenge him about the entries in his police interview.

A NEW bungle has emerged in the investigation of Mohamed Haneef as Australian Federal Police chief Mick Keelty yesterday dimissed reports that the Indian doctor was suspected of being involved in a plot to attack the Gold Coast’s tallest building.

The Australian can reveal that investigating AFP officers wrote the names of overseas terror suspects in Dr Haneef’s personal diary, only to later grill him during an interrogation over whether he had written the potentially incriminating notes.

What is going on here?

5 comments ↓

#1 dawood on 07.23.07 at 7:22 pm

That is just downright shady. What is going on here?!

#2 SLR5000 on 07.23.07 at 7:25 pm

If this is true then It’s either a monumental mistake or the guy is being fitted up for the charges. It’s hard to believe policemen would just happen to write the names and addresses of terrorist suspects in his diary.

#3 pommygranate on 07.23.07 at 8:09 pm

I agree. this is starting to look like gross incompetence mixed with deliberate framing.

what the hell are the police up to?

#4 Eudaemonion on 07.24.07 at 1:52 am

If only an indirect link could be established between this circus and Howard’s ‘Tampa’ like scare tactics.

*sigh*

#5 gess on 07.24.07 at 5:06 am

Bungle ?

Try this one:

Cavuto: You also have the advantage in a bureaucracy, Jerry, I think you pointed this out, of becoming invisible, right? Whereas if you were to join a US medical practice, or even, as some internists do, just join an operation say, in Missouri, or Kansas …

Boyer: Right.

Cavuto: … You would stand out, for your religious views, or being an oddity, period. I’m not racist, but it just is. So that’s what’s distinctive about – in a national system, it’s just more diluted, right?

Boyer: Right. Think about your doctor, I’ll think about my doctor. Doctors in America tend to sort of cluster together in these practices, with three or five, or six or seven, maybe a dozen partners … if one of your guys is a jihadi, if one of your doctors is spending all his time online, you know, reading Osama bin Laden fatwas, somebody’s going to notice that.

But the National Health Service is more like the post office, you know, there’s a lot of anonymity, it’s easy to hide in a bureaucracy, and, more to the point, if you’re a physician, and you’re in partnership with another physician, and they turn out to be a terrorist, the practice is blown. I mean, there’s severe economic consequences for you. But in a big bureaucracy, that’s not the case.

(If you’re too dense to have gotten the point so far, Cavuto flogs the Fox money shot.)

Cavuto: The fact that we might be looking to go this way in the United States, you’re saying one of the potential consequences, without judging national health care one way or the other [heavens no, the concept of Fox News anchors interjecting their personal biases into news coverage is just too bizarre to contemplate], is that this could happen, that we have to be at least aware of the distinct possibility, in such a system, we would have to recruit outside doctors, and where we’re getting the most of them these days seems to be from the Muslim world.

http://atimes.com/atimes/Globa.....4Dj01.html

Leave a Comment