Posted on 07/14/2007 2:24:24 PM PDT by LibWhacker
SYMPATHISING with a terrorist organisation is now a "thought crime" in Australia, say human rights lawyers concerned about the use of anti-terrorism laws against Gold Coast-based doctor Mohammed Haneef.
They warn the case against Haneef, an Indian national who worked at Gold Coast Hospital and yesterday became the first person to be charged in Australia with "recklessly" supporting a terrorist organisation, leaves thousands of people open to similar charges if they show even "a minute level of support to a terrorist organisation".
Haneef was charged after leaving his mobile phone SIM card with two cousins allegedly involved in the recent British car bomb attacks. The three shared a house in London and remained in contact after Haneef moved to the Gold Coast a year ago.
Senior defence lawyers who have represented high-profile terrorism suspects warn that the new laws fail to strike a balance between the rights of the accused and those of the state.
According to human rights lawyer Greg Barns, such laws would have led to the jailing of thousands of ordinary people — and politicians and sports stars — who donated to Nelson Mandela's ANC or supported the IRA in the 1970s and 1980s.
"If you were to send an email to al-Qaeda in Pakistan, and the email expresses support for a planned future attack you could be charged with providing support to a terrorist organisation," said Mr Barns, a barrister who is appearing in a Melbourne terrorism-related trial.
"In other words, you can be convicted of what is essentially, in these examples, thought crimes. It potentially catches anyone who provides even a minute level of support to a terrorist organisation anywhere in the world."
Defence lawyers have also attacked the Federal Government and the federal police "for seriously undermining" Haneef's chances of receiving a fair trial.
Ongoing commentary by Attorney-General Philip Ruddock and AFP chief Mick Keelty before charges were laid "seriously compromised" Haneef's case, barrister Rob Stary said yesterday.
Comments by senior legal and law enforcement figures gave the impression Haneef was associated with terrorism before charges could be tested, he said.
"Law enforcement agencies holding press conferences prior to a person being charged compromises their right to a fair trial," Mr Stary said.
It’s wrong..... but for once it’s wrong in the right direction.
(Still wrong of course.)
Just what does this puke think war is about?!
People should be allowed to express their opinion, regardless of what it is.
Once they move to substantive support such as donating money or volunteering for an organization dedicated to killing Americans (or Australians), they drift into what even the very restrictive US Constitution defines as treason.
IMHO.
The “human rights lawyers” are generally the same groups pushing laws that essentially make disapproval of homosexuality a “thought crime.” So now it’s the exact opposite position in order to support the terrorists. Evil scum.
When an individual knowingly communicates with a terrorist organization and offers support for future terrorist acts, it is no different than communicating with a criminal organization and offering support for future criminal acts.
It is commonly called “accessory before the fact”.
It does not matter if the crime has not yet been committed.
The only right of terrorists should be a night of torture
for info, prior to their execution.
Express? Sure. And accept the consequences.
Muslim logic.
It's a real crime.
That logic is plain stupid. If you limit guilt to just those carrying out the mass murder, why are there conspiracy laws?
If I perfct ways to rob banks efficiently, am I immune from prosecution if I never actually rob a bank?
Give me a break!
Supporting terrorists now Has Always Been a 'thought Conspiracy crime'
Yeah. Murder is a “thought crime,” too, because murderers think about it before doing it.
Issuing propaganda to aid and abet the enemy is an active crime against one’s own nation. It’s a tool for murdering one’s own people.
Anarchists (known by another, more popular label now) are as evil as their socialist friends.
Rule #1: There are no rules.
Rule #2: See rule #1.
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Kinda interestin’
Ah geez.....already with the bleeding hearts, there hasn’t been a trial, and the so called Human Rights bar is chock a block full of wackos.
I am inclined to agree with you here. Terrorism is nothing more than the enemy of civilization. It's not a policy or a philosophy, but the worship of destruction couched in religious language.
Terrorism is a dead end path. If you want to oppose the goverment or support your ideals, write your congressman. Donate money. Vote. Start a blog. Whatever. But to support terrorism is to support violently dismantling the foundation of society, simply to achieve goals that free people would otherwise reject. It should be stamped out without a hint of remorse.
Haneef was charged after leaving his mobile phone SIM card with two cousins allegedly involved in the recent British car bomb attacks.
There is a very clear line between "thought" and "action".
Not to worry, this is only for the precedent. Soon to follow, other thought crimes: opposing the concept that people should be unplugged, thereby depriving the state of transplantable organs...opposition to homosexuality...opposition to the murder of unborn babies.
>> “In other words, you can be convicted of what is essentially, in these examples, thought crimes...”
“Essentially” is a spin word.
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.