The pursuit of terrorists post September 11: be afraid, be very afraid …

Also, other than for offences that impose mandatory life imprisonment, such as murder, it is assumed that as long as risks are appropriately addressed, an accused person is entitled to be free until such time as an independent judicial process determines guilt. These are important protections which set us apart from the arbitrary detention and political abuse of power that existed, for example, under Saddam Hussein and still exists in places such as Burma and Zimbabwe.

We rightly cite this balance as being an indication of Australia's maturity as a democracy and our sophistication in governance.

However, the 2004 laws under which Dr Haneef has been detained bear almost no relation to these principles, and indeed intentionally demolish many of them.

First, the Act permitted the government to detain the doctor in a police cell for two weeks without any charge. This is despite his having co-operatively answered hundreds of questions from the AFP on the very first day.

Second, after this interrogation the government was allowed to withhold from Dr Haneef and his lawyers' critical evidence relied upon by the government's lawyers in charging him and seeking his detention prior to any trial. The court can be shown this material and is required to act upon it without ever receiving any argument against that evidence by Dr Haneef.

Third, the presumption of innocence is significantly diminished by requiring Dr Haneef to demonstrate "exceptional circumstances" in order to be released on bail.

Fourth, after having managed to do that before an independent court he remained in custody because a government minister determined that Haneef had failed a "character test" within our migration laws. Dr Haneef has to now seek a Federal Court review of the Minister's decision before he has any prospect of being able to resume his work as a doctor.

It was not the system that finally rescued Dr Haneef, rather the effective investigation of the matter by a handful of journalists and editors in the media, especially from The Australian newspaper. Our collective liberties cannot be reliant on similar enthusiasm being shown whenever a person is accused of these crimes.

Other commentators and indeed Dr Haneef's lawyers have amply demonstrated specific limitations in how the government's case was proceeded with. However, let us assume that the government's conduct is "lawful" in the sense that this is what they intended the legislation to permit. What does it say about our respect for universal rights? And perhaps more importantly, how much safer are our children from the real acts of terror?

It is probable that if any real terrorists are caught by the AFP, the government's framework will be effective and they are unlikely to be released before trial. In that sense we are protected. But it will also catch many other people who are clearly not terrorists nor in any way supportive of terrorism. It will catch young men like Haneef, who obtained qualifications as a doctor and gained legitimate entry into Australia to work in our understaffed health system.

A year earlier he had been so "reckless" as to give his cousin his SIM card without knowing his cousin's future purposes. He would later be accused of a connection with an act of terrorism on the other side of the world. Haneef's cousin has been investigated by the British authorities, and reportedly cleared of any association with any terrorist organisation. Contrary to what was originally submitted by the DPP, the SIM card was not in fact found in the car used in the attempted bomb attack.

How these and other misstatements were made warrant an independent inquiry and made the criminal allegations against Haneef a complete farce.