A vivid dream

I think about her everyday. Sometimes its only a brief thought which I dismiss easily. Sometimes, the thoughts linger longer.

She only rarely visits me in my dreams, so it is surprising when she does.

She visited me last night. At first, I wasn't sure that she recognized me so I started to say something. She smiled me back into silence.

We started to talk, but then she had to leave. She seemed to suggest I should follow, and so I turned around to pick something up. When I turned around again she was gone. I realised that there was only one thing left to do.

I woke up.

Andrews caught in a quantum superposition of truth states again

Either Andrews is lying about facts on the public record, or he is incompetent. From today's Insiders:

BARRIE CASSIDY: Sure, but you still haven't addressed that issue. What do the police say to you about that? Is it unusual for somebody accused of having a link with terrorists to try to contact the police?

KEVIN ANDREWS: We don't know the full details about that contact and how that occurred or whether it occurred or not. All I'm saying to you is, I had a body of evidence provided to me...

The record of interview clearly shows that after Dr Haneef told police he had attempted to call Tony Webster in the UK, the police then obtained a list of the exact call times from some source. They, not Dr Haneef, read those times into the record of interview. For Andrews to state that this is not known, is an absurd denial of a fact that is clearly documented.

Given his bizarre statements of the last few days, I would not be surprised if Keelty comes out to bat for Andrews with another Rumsfeld-esque excursion into epistemology: "To say we know something, indeed, anything at all, now that is a big call."

Haneef's explanation for the "nothing has been found about you"

In this report, Haneef claims that the statement "nothing has been found about you" was in reference to a BBC report. There is a report available on the BBC site dated July 1 that refers to a Liverpool arrest which may be the report Haneef is referring to.

Presumably Haneef's explanation is backed up by the record of the 2nd interview, otherwise he could be easily contradicted. It seems hard to believe that this could be a "just so" explanation since it is highly unlikely Dr Haneef had access to a web terminal to look up the corroborating BBC article in the time between being asked the question and offering an answer to the question - he was in detention, after all.

A roo caught in the headlights

Kevin Andrews still hasn't produced any solid evidence that justifies why we should suspect Mohamed Haneef, as distinct from his cousins, of anything sinister.

What we have seen is evidence of a frightened man behaving like the proverbial roo frozen in the headlights. Except this roo had the presence of mind to step off the road for a second and make a call to authorities to ask if the headlights were really meant for him.

Kevin Andrews should resign, get out of the AFP's way and let them do their job properly. Refusing to do so, to protect John Howard's legacy, would appear to pose a serious risk to our national security.

Debugging Democracy

Too cute by half.

One interesting thing in the Solicitor General's advice are the words:

"(his brother told him) ... not to let anyone else use his number in Australia or give it to anyone else"

What could be significant is that in the Solictor-General's advice these words were not quoted, indicating that they were a paraphrase of source material, rather than source material itself.

In some media this has been reported that he was advised he should not share his contact details. However, perhaps it is actually a paraphrase of advice not to give his phone or SIM to anyone.

Evidence in support of this interpretation is that it was not advice for Haneef to not use his own number. It was advice to not allow others to use it or possess it.

Sounds to me more like reasonable advice to give about a phone. Something along the lines of: "Haneef, you idiot, whatever you do this time, don't give your phone away!"

Yet, this is not how the paraphrase read. The paraphrase sounds like he is being warned to maintain radio silence, so to speak. But even the paraphrase doesn't actually say that. Yet, the public was invited to form a conclusion that something about his brother's advice in this case was suspicious.

This raises big questions about whether the Government is playing fast and loose with facts in its possession.

I am not claiming I know what the actual words were. I am claiming there is sufficient reason to doubt the Government's interpretation of the source material and this is very good reason for the Government to be more transparent in its presentation of so-called evidence.

I encourage everyone who reads this note and cares about the presumption of innocence and abuse of executive power to circulate this note to others of similar mind.

Let's see a little viral democracy in action.