Saturday, 27 February 2010

ASIO targets new spy suspects

as posted here


ASIO targets new spy suspects

JASON KOUTSOUKIS
February 27, 2010
EXCLUSIVE
ASIO is investigating at least three dual Australian-Israeli citizens who they suspect of using Australian cover to spy for Israel.
The investigation began at least six months before last month's assassination of the Hamas operative Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, widely believed to have been carried out by the Israeli security agency Mossad.
Authorities in Dubai have revealed that three people suspected of taking part in the assassination were travelling on Australian passports, using the names of three dual Australian-Israeli citizens.
The three Australian names linked to the assassination are in no way connected to the three people being investigated by ASIO.
According to two Australian intelligence sources who have been in contact with the Herald, the three men under surveillance all emigrated to Israel within the last decade.
Each has travelled back to Australia at different times to legally change their names and obtain new Australian passports. One of the men has changed his surname three times, the other two have changed theirs twice.
The men have changed their names from surnames that could be read as European-Jewish to ones more typically identified as Anglo-Australian.
Australian citizens are generally allowed to change their name once every 12 months, as long as it is not for criminal reasons.
The new passports have been used to gain entry to a number of countries that are hostile to Israel including Iran, Syria and Lebanon. All three do not recognise Israel and forbid Israelis from entering. Israel also forbids its citizens from travelling to those countries for security reasons.
The Herald understands that the three Australians share an involvement with a European communications company that has a subsidiary in the Middle East. A person travelling under one of these names sought Australian consular assistance in Tehran in 2004.
The Herald has contacted two of the men, both of whom emphatically denied they were involved in any kind of espionage activity.
Both men confirmed they had changed their surnames, but said that the proposition they had done so in order to obtain new documents to travel throughout the Middle East were, in the words of one, "totally absurd''.
"This is a complete fantasy," said the man when contacted in Israel. "I have changed my name for personal reasons.''
The other man, who was not in Israel when contacted, expressed shock at the suggestion he was under any kind of surveillance and said that he had also changed his name for personal reasons.
"I have never been to any of those countries that you say I have been to,'' he said. ''I am not involved in any kind of spying. That is ridiculous."
The same man is also believed to hold British citizenship, and is believed to have come to the attention of British intelligence after he had changed his name.
In January the Herald visited the offices of the European company that connects the three men.
The company's office manager confirmed to the Herald that one of the men being monitored by ASIO - the same man believed to hold a British passport - was employed by the company but was "unavailable".
The company's chief executive later emphatically denied that this man was ever employed by his company, and totally rejected that his company was being used to gather intelligence on behalf of Israel.
ASIO said it had no comment to make on the case.
Meanwhile, the government confronted Israel for a second time yesterday over the Dubai plot, with the acting ambassador in Tel Aviv, Nicoli Maning-Campbell, conveying the government's concerns to officials in Israel.
The Israeli embassy in Canberra said it had relayed Australia's demands to Israel but would not comment.
with Jonathan Pearlman
















































































as posted here

Friday, 26 February 2010

Human rights under threat

as posted here


Human rights under threat

26 February 2010 | by The New LawyerPrint this articleCommentsShare this article
INCREASED security measures outlined in the Government’s Counter Terrorism White Paper could potentially breach human rights according to lawyers involved in several high profile national security cases.

Maurice Blackburn lawyer Elizabeth O’Shea says that the White Paper falls short of the safeguards needed on questions of national security. Maurice Blackburn represented peace activist Scott Parkin and is assisting Dr Mohamed Haneef in his claim for compensation for wrongful detention.

“Some of the Government’s comments are alarmist and miss the mark,” said O’Shea, who specialises in public interest litigation.

“There is far too little discussion about why our law enforcement and security agencies need greater powers and this has the potential to undermine human rights and democratic principles. There is already concern that people can be detained without charge for 14 days.

“The measures could invite fear of outsiders, undermine the strength of our democracy and lead to government agencies operating like they are above the law.”

O’Shea said Australia’s legal system has long had a range of measures to deal with criminal acts or threats of terrorism, and the introduction of new more complex measures can make it less likely that laws will operate effectively and make it harder to investigate possible miscarriages of justice.

“The cases of Scott Parkin, Mohamed Haneef and others represented by Maurice Blackburn are a reminder that anti-terrorism laws can breach basic human rights,” she said.

In 2005, Parkin along with two asylum seekers, Mohammed Sagar and Mohammad Faisal were given adverse security assessments by ASIO and Parkin was removed from the country and given a bill of over $11,000 for the costs of his deportation.

Mohammed Sagar was accepted as a refugee in Sweden and Mohammad Faisal was eventually accepted as a refugee in Australia, passing subsequent security assessments without a problem.

“Five years later and at immense cost and inconvenience to the parties concerned, we still have no explanation from ASIO why these men were considered threats to national security. Dr Haneef is still awaiting compensation for his wrongful detention.

None of these men were charged with a crime, the firm said.

The Counter-Terrorism White Paper refers to the Clarke Inquiry into the case of Dr Haneef and the measures that have been implemented as a result but it is not clear what safeguards have been put in place to prevent another wrongful detention.


as posted here

Mohamed Haneef papers blocked

as posted here


Mohamed Haneef papers blocked

THE federal government is invoking national security provisions to block cleared terrorism suspect Mohamed Haneef from seeing a document detailing ASIO's secret dealings with Australian migration authorities.
The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is fighting a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which last year granted Dr Haneef access to a slew of documents relating to his arrest and detention.
Dr Haneef was working in a Gold Coast hospital in July 2007 when he was arrested on suspicion of being involved in the Glasgow airport bombings.
The Indian doctor was later charged with giving support to a terrorist organisation, but the charge was dropped.
Since then, lawyers for Dr Haneef have launched a Freedom of Information blitz, which The Australian understands may be eventually used to seek compensation from the federal government.
Now the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is protesting against the release of parts of two documents, which they say could damage national security and violate the confidence of a foreign government.
One is a high-level diplomatic cable from Australia's high commission in New Delhi, detailing a meeting with Indian government officials at the height of the Haneef saga.
The second is a secret document describing interactions between the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation and Australian migration authorities.
The matter is now before the Federal Court in Brisbane, where barrister James Renwick yesterday tendered a secret affidavit by a senior ASIO officer explaining why the second document cannot be released.
Dr Renwick said the document was marked "secret", which meant it would "cause great damage to national security".
The diplomatic cable should also not be released in its entirety, Dr Renwick argued, because it described a confidential discussion between Australian and Indian officials about the Haneef matter.
The cable was sent on July 17, 2007 -- the day after Dr Haneef's visa was cancelled by the Australian government.
Dr Haneef's barrister, Stephen Keim SC, argued that the contentious parts of both documents should be released to his client.
Judge John Dowsett reserved his decision in the matter.


as posted here

Monday, 22 February 2010

Man posed as spy to con woman

as posted here


Man posed as spy to con woman, court told

A MELBOURNE man posed as an ASIO agent to con nearly $150,000 from a woman, a court has heard.
Wayne Charters convinced Karen Roberts he was the man of her dreams by feigning an interest in her hobbies of dolphins, spirituality and art, prosecutors allege.
The pair married after knowing each other for just a few months, although Mr Charters did not love his wife, a Victorian County Court trial heard today.
Prosecutor Mark Gibson said Charters, 55, convinced Ms Roberts, 47, to sell her home, car and furniture on the guise that the couple needed to relocate overseas.
The money from the sales was placed into the couple's joint account from which Charters then withdrew it, the court heard.
Charters told Ms Roberts if they did not move to Canada, ASIO would send him to the Iraq war, Mr Gibson said.
He said Charters' "carefully planned, clever manipulations or mind games" were aimed at striking at Karen Roberts' heart strings so she would fall in love with him.
The couple went to Singapore for their honeymoon in 2003 but Ms Roberts returned to Australia with her daughter after three weeks, the court heard.
Charters returned to Australia in 2008, the jury was told.
He has pleaded not guilty to five counts of obtaining property by deception.
His lawyer Justin Wheelahan said his client "utterly denied" saying that he was called up to fight in Iraq for ASIO.
He said there were less exotic reasons why Ms Roberts wanted to sell her house and move overseas.
The trial before Judge James Montgomery is continuing.


as posted here

Monday, 15 February 2010

Five Sydney terrorists jailed

as posted here


Five Sydney terrorists jailed

MALCOLM BROWN
February 15, 2010 - 2:39PM

Five Sydney terrorists jailed

Five Sydney men convicted of terrorism-related offences have been sentenced to maximum sentences ranging from 23 to 28 years in prison.
Five Sydney men convicted of terrorism-related offences have been sentenced to maximum sentences ranging from 23 to 28 years in prison.
Justice Anthony Whealy, who presided over a trial that began in November 2008, said in the Supreme Court at Parramatta that the offence of conspiring to commit an act in preparation for a terrorist act or acts was higher on the scale of criminality.
He said today that he was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that each of the offenders had intended that the end result of their actions would be serious damage to property, carrying with it the risk of death or injury to the public.
The men are not allowed to be named for legal reasons.
The first man, 44, regarded as the principal organiser of the conspiracy, was sentenced to a maximum term of 28 years in prison, commencing on November 8, 2005, when he was arrested, with a non-parole period of 21 years.
The second man 36, was sentenced to 27 years in prison from the time of his arrest in 2005, with a non-parole period of 20 years and three months.
The third man, 40, was sentenced to 20 years in prison from the time of his arrest in 2005, with a non-parole period of 19 years and six months.
The fourth man, 34, was also sentenced to 26 years in prison from the time of his arrest in 2005, with a non-parole period also of 19 years and six months.
The fifth man, 25, who entered the conspiracy later than the others and was not arrested until September 21, 2006, received a term of 23 years, backdated to the time of his arrest with a non-parole period of 17 years and three months.
The five men were among nine people arrested in a huge police and ASIO crackdown in 2005 and 2006.
Of those, four have pleaded guilty to lesser offences and have been dealt with.
The five who elected to go on trial pleaded not guilty and were convicted on October 16 last year.
Justice Whealy said in his remarks on sentencing today that the jury had apparently been satisfied that each of the five had intended that acts be carried in Australia involving the detonation of explosives. He said the jury must have been satisfied that this was for the purpose of carrying out violent jihad so as to coerce the Australian government to change its policies regarding the invasion of Muslim countries.
Justice Whealy said that what was particularly appalling was the videos and other extremist materials that had been found in possession of the accused.
He said that some of the videos involving executions were so horrific that they had not been shown to the jury. Instead, only a written summary had been provided.
Each of the offenders, Justice Whealy said, had been driven by a religious zeal, and the fact that it was a conspiracy meant that it took on a life of its own and was more menacing than the individual acts of the participants.
He said that chemicals for bomb making and ammunition had been accumulated in preparation for a terrorist act or acts and he noted that there was "a wide range" of material that had never been recovered and might be available to terrorists in future conspiracies.
Justice Whealy was not satisfied that the accused men had intended to kill.
But he was satisfied that, because of the extreme nature in their views, what they intended to happen contained the possibility that life would be taken.
The five accused wore traditional clothing and four of them wore prayer caps.
During the judge's summing up, some of them smiled and, during breaks in his address, some of them exchanged pleasantries with each other.
After the sentences were pronounced and the judge left the bench, all five broke into smiles.
Two men shouted from the back of the court in Arabic: "Be patient. Allah is with you."


































































































as posted here