Bail is already set down by law in cases like this as “only under the most extreme circumstances”.
The judge looked at what the federal police and the government were laying before her as a ‘case’, and said, ‘you don't have anything resembling a case, this man now has world-wide notoriety, and deserves bail.’ And she set bail.
The government then turned around and screamed blue murder, not only putting him in prison through what can only be termed a vindictive act of bastardry, but then having the Attorney General saying that not only would the laws be changed to prevent this sort of outrage (When we made it theoretically possible to get bail, we never meant for it to be actually possible...), but saying that any attempt to provide a defence for him, to provide evidence that the police or government or both were spreading lies about him and his motives, would result in his detention being delayed for a few years until any distant hope of public awareness had died away.
None of this was necessary, you know. The laws have been well and truly written that he could have been disappeared instantly, and any public coverage would have been itself illegal. They didn't. They could have convinced a magistrate that Haneef is a clear and present danger. They couldn't.
It hasn't helped that they have since been caught lying to providing incorrect information to the court, and actively interfering with the evidence.
oh, I don't know, being executed by the government for a war crime. 1) we don't do that here. 2) there wasn't even enough evidence to deny him bail, where the HOLY FUCK did the idea of executing him come from? 3) Just, generally, WTF?
... and you accuse *me* of ignorance...
The judge looked at what the federal police and the government were laying before her as a ‘case’, and said, ‘you don't have anything resembling a case, this man now has world-wide notoriety, and deserves bail.’ And she set bail.
The government then turned around and screamed blue murder, not only putting him in prison through what can only be termed a vindictive act of bastardry, but then having the Attorney General saying that not only would the laws be changed to prevent this sort of outrage (When we made it theoretically possible to get bail, we never meant for it to be actually possible...), but saying that any attempt to provide a defence for him, to provide evidence that the police or government or both were spreading lies about him and his motives, would result in his detention being delayed for a few years until any distant hope of public awareness had died away.
None of this was necessary, you know. The laws have been well and truly written that he could have been disappeared instantly, and any public coverage would have been itself illegal. They didn't. They could have convinced a magistrate that Haneef is a clear and present danger. They couldn't.
It hasn't helped that they have since been caught
lying toproviding incorrect information to the court, and actively interfering with the evidence.oh, I don't know, being executed by the government for a war crime.
1) we don't do that here.
2) there wasn't even enough evidence to deny him bail, where the HOLY FUCK did the idea of executing him come from?
3) Just, generally, WTF?