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

But the intervention of the DPP, as welcome as it was, will now take the pressure off the government in the short term. Since he has been returned to India, the remaining combatants in this rather feeble war will attempt to re-create history, lay the finger of blame at others - Keelty went so far as blaming the media - and reject any need for review of the powers given to them and how they have used or misused them.

It is politically important to be seen to be tough on "terrorism". The Federal Opposition stood "shoulder to shoulder" with the government on this issue until its case had been completely obliterated by the media and the DPP. Because it's an election year, any criticism, however reasoned, might have been seen as a sign of weakness and reflect badly at the voting booth.

But what is at stake is much more than the makeup of the next Australian parliament. What is at stake is our collective sense of what is right and wrong in the treatment of individuals in this country, both citizens and non-citizens, in the professed pursuit of our collective safety and protection from political terrorism; in essence our collective “line in the sand”.

The critical question that must asked, is whether there have been systemic failings in the Haneef case or a sequence of mistakes by key players; or worse still an opaque mix of both. And, the certainties expressed by all sides of the present discussion, and the view that the appropriate "balance" has been reached, will prevent solutions being found. As will the expedient personal attacks which have been the only focus of some of the people responsible for this system.

Australians want to be safe from terrorism. Not just to feel safe, although that is also important, but to actually be safe. And given our riches we are entitled to the best protection our governments can devise. Most decent people will accept there will need to be some incursion into our individual rights. We will all cop a "feel" from airport security, limit the beauty products we take onboard and wait for twice as long before we get on a plane, because we accept that those measures are probably making us safer from weapons or a bomb being brought on.

The same test should be applied to the legislative framework under which the AFP, DPP prosecutors and the immigration officials have been given such extraordinary powers to conduct their work in this area.

We have seen the powerful tools they have been given, some of which they have utilised against Haneef, can clearly exact brutal impact upon the life of anyone accused of being involved in terrorism: detaining without charge for weeks on end, reversing the presumption of innocence when seeking bail, the power to revert to migration laws to usurp a court's decision on bail thereby using executive rather than judicial power to continue to detain him.

Some might say that even though Haneef is now cleared of any involvement in terrorism, that these intrusions and the decimation of his character, and the weeks in detention are justified; such is the danger from terrorism. Others may think that such an approach does not protect a far more fundamental Australian value, the idea that everyone gets "a fair go", and some would be concerned that they might face similar treatment.

There must also be a review of the checks and balances that are in the present legislative framework so that this intrusion into his life and demolition of his character was not in complete vain.

A system that is reliant on the integrity of individuals, some of whom have a vested and sometimes political interest in being seen to be "tough on terrorism", is apt to human failings. It is not as safe as a system that is informed by a subscription to fundamental principles, as secondary as those imperatives might have to be to the need to protect the community from terrorism. Unless our system is based in principle it will always be open to the concerns in the Muslim community that there was too much regard given to Haneef's ethnicity and religion. It is a real fear and one all of us should share.

The application of these laws in the fashion exercised against Haneef has not made many of us feel safer and there is no real likelihood that we are in fact any safer. Yet these laws abridge the rights of all of us by demonising an individual by mere allegation.

These laws do not protect Australians. They look unlikely to increase the possibilities of catching terrorists and their associates. Yet they diminish and shame us and lay bare our pretensions of sophistication and maturity as a nation that heralds the "fair go".

The brutal demonstration of executive power against this young doctor signals a cold warning about how dangerous unchecked political power can become. Big Brother is not just a boring reality TV show. Even Orwell would be grimacing. Be afraid, be very afraid ...