By Alex Mitchell*
Stage management of the coronial inquest into the Lindt café siege broke down in spectacular fashion this week with the NSW Director of Public Prosecutions scrambling to ban publication of embarrassing evidence.
The DPP wants to suppress evidence of why the siege gunman Man Haron Monis was on bail on serious criminal charges when he took hostages at gunpoint at the Martin Place coffee bar last December 15.
Let’s remember, when Monis was bailed he was facing 40 charges of sexual and indecent assault and had already been convicted of sending offensive letters to the families of Australian soldiers who had been killed in Afghanistan.
Someone must have strenuously supported his bail application. The question is who?
No prizes for guessing it was ASIO or some variety of the secret police community. These idiots regarded Monis as an intelligence ‘asset’ because he was a refugee from Iran and sold them a cock and bull story that he was a former intelligence officer.
After his arrival in Australia, he offered to be an ASIO agent informing on the Iranian and Shi’ite communities. Mossad and the CIA were enthusiastic and encouraged the Australians to take him on.
When the Iranian Embassy realised what was happening it contacted official channels in Canberra and warned them that Monis was a fantasist with a criminal record. ‘They would say that, wouldn’t they?’ concluded ASIO and gave him the status of a protected informer.
For years they ran Monis: he obtained citizenship, a bank account, a regular stipend, a place to live in Western Sydney, a licence to have a gun. He changed his name, switched from being an imam to a sheikh and later from being a Shi’ite to a Sunni.
Every serious person in Sydney’s Islamic community thought he was an ASIO informer and steered clear of him. But ASIO and the NSW police persisted, squeezing him dry and sending him on madder and more dangerous missions.
One was to infiltrate the Rebels bikie gang to check on possible international drug links with the Middle East. This is what sent the fantasist into a state of extreme paranoia, persecution mania and anger.
When he walked into Martin Place last December to make headlines and draw attention to himself, he was a time bomb set to go off. Why didn’t ASIO stop him?
Tale of Two Letters
Last December, a few days after the Martin Place siege, then NSW Opposition Leader John Robertson revealed that his Blacktown electorate office had received a letter from Monis requesting advice.
And as a good local MP, Robertson responded with a standard signed letter.
The Murdoch press went into hyperventilation and his ALP enemies seized the opportunity to claim he ‘lacked judgement’. ‘Robbo’ was forced out and replaced by the ‘hard left’s’ Luke Foley.
At Senate hearings in Canberra this week it was revealed that federal Attorney-General George Brandis also received a letter from Monis.
‘I would like to send a letter to Caliph Ibrahim**, the leader of the Islamic State, in which making some comments and asking some questions,’ Monis wrote in awkward English. ‘Please advise me whether the communication is legal or illegal.’
Brandis told the hearing that he did not reply personally to the May 2014 letter, but his department did – a few months before the siege.
He said: ‘There was no reason to believe that any member of the Attorney-General’s Department staff would have known that Monis, or Haron as he signed himself, was a person of concern at that particular time.’
He must be kidding. Monis had been convicted of sending deeply offensive letters to the relatives of soldiers killed in Afghanistan. The court story had been front-page news all over the country.
His letter to Brandis asking whether he could write to the head of ISIS, who had succeeded Osama bin Laden as the Western world’s most wanted man, should have rung alarm bells in the AG’s Department, particularly as it is responsible for the massively over-funded ASIO.
It didn’t. Instead, it received routinely courteous treatment. Why?
Predictably, News Ltd rags are not calling for Brandis’s resignation nor for an investigation of ASIO’s bumbling incompetence.
In ‘Robbo’s’ case, his official electorate letter was sent in September 2011 before ISIS or al-Baghdadi were ever heard of.
As Robertson explained last December: ‘He (Monis) was seeking a supervised visit with his children on Father’s Day. His request was forwarded in a routine manner.’
He wasn’t asking to write to Bin Laden or al-Baghdadi but to see his kids on Father’s Day. And it was before he had become a convicted criminal.
While Labor’s Robertson was hounded out of his job for his ‘routine’ response, Brandis (Liberal) is protected with the complicity of the media.
* Alex Mitchell is a veteran NSW political journalist. This is the latest report from his weekly notebook Come the Revolution.
** The title used by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, head of ISIS, aka ‘the death cult’
Great piece, thanks for that Alex and thank you The Echo.
Articles like this are why The Echo is the only local newspaper I’ve come across anywhere that is worth reading. Please keep up the independent journalism.
I’m full-heartedly in agreement with Hugo and the posts that our local Echo deliver’s. I also feel that our NSW AG must be held responsible for allowing Man Hanon Moris to be walking the streets with such a CV of criminality, let alone, mentality and that the inquest remain on track as to why, what, when, where, who did Man Hanon Moris become involved with and the NSW’s DPP inaction during any prior committal hearing before the court.
well said.
Good piece. I said virtually the same sort of things in December last year, here: http://syncreticstudies.com/2014/12/30/cui-bono-why-12-15-was-an-inside-job/
I’m very interested to know where the information in this article regarding Monis’ relationship with ASIO was sourced. I suspected he had been used by ASIO but have never seen any confirmation of this before.
Most interesting. And convincing. I was wondering what was up with this pathetic figure and how we got away with all that he did. You’ve hit the nail on the head.
To Whom It May Concern:
The current inquest seems to be continuing to ignore the critical issue of the entire saga. Despite the extent
of the information contained in the following Federal Government review:
https://www.dpmc.gov.au/pmc/publication/martin-place-siege-joint-commonwealth-new-south-wales-review
A revised version of the email sent to media outlets on 1 April 2016 appears below, viz:-
From: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 1, 2016 5:34 PM
To: 7:30 Report ABC ; SBS ; The Sydney Morning Herald ; The Telegraph ; Guardian The
Subject: Sydney siege inquest
Letters to Ed:
Pls send a RR. Thanks.
News reports to date appear to indicate that none of the enquiries into the Man Monas’ siege have
pursued the obvious critical issue.
Running TV coverage of the Martin Place siege showed Man Monas clearly visible through the Lindt Café
street frontage windows. If TV cameras from across the street were able to get clear views of Monas, then
why was it not possible for Police sharp shooters to take him out from across the street? Some rapid
sniper fire to break the glass and subsequently to dong Monas may well have saved the lives of the
victims of the Tactical Response bungling of the rescue. The scenario portrayed would not have been
allowed to run the gamut of NSW government incompetence had it occurred in the USA, that’s for sure.
The similarities with the Port Arthur Massacre may include D-Notices (or similar gags) to news media of
a political cover-up of gross incompetence and negligence on the part of the Federal and NSW State
governments.
At about midway through the Part Arthur saga, it was reported on radio that Police marksmen had the
perpetrator Martin Bryant in their sights, but were obliged to wait for politically inspired permission
to shoot that never came in a timely manner. The opportunity to save dozens more innocent lives was
squandered. As a direct result of systemic failure of authority, Bryant went on to shoot dead dozens
more people than necessary. Fifty years later official acknowledgement that the failure was real may be
made – or maybe never.
The real unanswered questions in the public’s mind relate to political limitations imposed upon the
enquiries conducted to date. Were restricted terms of reference imposed upon the enquiries to preclude
such examination or not? Was it more important to have flash bang spectacles and maximised drama
for TV and political grandeur, than to make a preemptive strike against a known felon at the earliest
opportunity?
Jim Bailey
Please note that http://www.rugc.net is the website for the Reform Undemocratic Government Campaign. Check it out.
I think Jim Bailey is probably a disinformation plant. If not, he is probably as delused as Monis. The give away is that he thinks (or pretends) that Martin Bryant was the shooter at Port Arthur.
More disinformation from Jim Bailey:
“At about midway through the Part Arthur saga, it was reported on radio that Police marksmen had the
perpetrator Martin Bryant in their sights, but were obliged to wait for politically inspired permission
to shoot that never came in a timely manner. The opportunity to save dozens more innocent lives was
squandered. As a direct result of systemic failure of authority, Bryant went on to shoot dead dozens
more people than necessary”.
Who are the dozens dead after the police marksmen has Bryant in their sights? The dozens dead were already dead at Port Arthur.
Bryant was not the shooter at Port Arthur.