Australian Politics Forum - Houston: turning back boats CAN work

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #75 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 5:01pm

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Another way of looking at it is that Howard recognised a back policy when he saw it and rectified the situation.

And yet Abbott doesn't recognise that exact same policy despite having lived through it himself as a minister in that government. Instead he demands against all advice that it be reinstated. That's beyond stupid. That borders on a knowing demand for willful murder.

Against all advice? Did Angus Houston not recently advise the government to do what Abbott has been saying for years?

No he didn't. If you had actually bothered to read the recommendations of the panel then you would know that. But feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance.

Unfortunatley, you reinterpret anything and everything you read and hear to suit your ideology. 'Turning back the boats' was supported except that it required Indonesian support which would not eventuate. Complain all you like but you just ignore what you dont like.

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #76 - Aug 16^th, 2012 at 7:10pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Another way of looking at it is that Howard recognised a back policy when he saw it and rectified the situation.

And yet Abbott doesn't recognise that exact same policy despite having lived through it himself as a minister in that government. Instead he demands against all advice that it be reinstated. That's beyond stupid. That borders on a knowing demand for willful murder.

Against all advice? Did Angus Houston not recently advise the government to do what Abbott has been saying for years?

No he didn't. If you had actually bothered to read the recommendations of the panel then you would know that. But feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance.

Unfortunatley, you reinterpret anything and everything you read and hear to suit your ideology. 'Turning back the boats' was supported except that it required Indonesian support which would not eventuate. Complain all you like but you just ignore what you dont like.

Q: How do you know if gold_medal_liar is lying? A: He's puts up a post.

The advice of the panel was:

Quote:

3.77 Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures, but only in circumstances where a range of operational, safety of life, diplomatic and legal conditions are met:

The State to which the vessel is to be returned would need to consent to such
a return
Turning around a vessel outside Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone (that
is, in international waters) or ‘steaming’ a vessel intercepted and turned around in
Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone back through international waters could
only be done under international law with the approval of the State in which the
vessel is registered (the ‘flag State’).
A decision to turn around a vessel would need to be made in accordance with
Australian domestic law and international law, including non-refoulement obligations,
and consider any legal responsibility Australia or operational personnel would
have for the consequences to the individuals on board any vessel that was to be
turned around.
Turning around a vessel would need to be conducted consistently with Australia’s
obligations under the SOLAS Convention, particularly in relation to those on board
the vessel, mindful also of the safety of those Australian officials or Australian
Defence Force (ADF ) personnel involved in any such operation.

3.78 Circumstances have changed since the limited number of turnbacks of irregular vessels
carrying asylum seekers in Australia over a decade ago. The legal context has changed.
The attitudes of many regional governments have evolved, raising the potential cost in
terms of bilateral cooperation generally and coordination on people smuggling activities
in particular. Furthermore, the pre-emptive tactics of people smugglers have adapted.
Irregular vessels carrying asylum seekers can often be quickly disabled or rendered
unsafe to foil any attempted turnbacks and to create a safety of life at sea situation.
In addition, the potential dangers for asylum seekers and Australian personnel in
effecting turnbacks have not diminished. (Attachment 8).

3.79 In implementing a turnback policy, an Australian Government would need to be
mindful of the significant operational implications for the ADF . In particular, there must
be a complete understanding that the Commanding Officer is best placed to assess
the situation to determine if a turnback is feasible, safe and lawful. Furthermore,
any implementation of the turnback policy would need to take careful account of
the availability of major fleet units that would be suitable to conduct and sustain
such operations.

3.80 In the Panel’s view, the conditions noted above and required for effective, lawful
and safe turnbacks of irregular vessels headed for Australia with asylum seekers on
board are not currently met in regard to turnbacks to Indonesia. That situation may
change in the future, in particular if appropriate regional and bilateral arrangements
are in place. It would only do so if the conditions outlined above (paragraph 3.77) are
fully met and, in particular, if there are changes in the understandings that exist with
regional states and if there is clarification of what constitutes safe and lawful conduct by
Australian personnel.

Now you show me where in there it says they recommend DOING it. To me that looks like a list of about ten good reasons NOT to do it. Saying it could be done if ten complicated conditions are met is NOT the same as saying that it's a great idea ... unless you're a cheerleader like AP of course.

Looks like it's you that is doing the ignoring longliar. Tongue

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #77 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Another way of looking at it is that Howard recognised a back policy when he saw it and rectified the situation.

And yet Abbott doesn't recognise that exact same policy despite having lived through it himself as a minister in that government. Instead he demands against all advice that it be reinstated. That's beyond stupid. That borders on a knowing demand for willful murder.

Against all advice? Did Angus Houston not recently advise the government to do what Abbott has been saying for years?

No he didn't. If you had actually bothered to read the recommendations of the panel then you would know that. But feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance.

Unfortunatley, you reinterpret anything and everything you read and hear to suit your ideology. 'Turning back the boats' was supported except that it required Indonesian support which would not eventuate. Complain all you like but you just ignore what you dont like.

Q: How do you know if gold_medal_liar is lying? A: He's puts up a post.

The advice of the panel was:

Quote:

3.77 Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures, but only in circumstances where a range of operational, safety of life, diplomatic and legal conditions are met:

The State to which the vessel is to be returned would need to consent to such
a return
Turning around a vessel outside Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone (that
is, in international waters) or ‘steaming’ a vessel intercepted and turned around in
Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone back through international waters could
only be done under international law with the approval of the State in which the
vessel is registered (the ‘flag State’).
A decision to turn around a vessel would need to be made in accordance with
Australian domestic law and international law, including non-refoulement obligations,
and consider any legal responsibility Australia or operational personnel would
have for the consequences to the individuals on board any vessel that was to be
turned around.
Turning around a vessel would need to be conducted consistently with Australia’s
obligations under the SOLAS Convention, particularly in relation to those on board
the vessel, mindful also of the safety of those Australian officials or Australian
Defence Force (ADF ) personnel involved in any such operation.

3.78 Circumstances have changed since the limited number of turnbacks of irregular vessels
carrying asylum seekers in Australia over a decade ago. The legal context has changed.
The attitudes of many regional governments have evolved, raising the potential cost in
terms of bilateral cooperation generally and coordination on people smuggling activities
in particular. Furthermore, the pre-emptive tactics of people smugglers have adapted.
Irregular vessels carrying asylum seekers can often be quickly disabled or rendered
unsafe to foil any attempted turnbacks and to create a safety of life at sea situation.
In addition, the potential dangers for asylum seekers and Australian personnel in
effecting turnbacks have not diminished. (Attachment 8).

3.79 In implementing a turnback policy, an Australian Government would need to be
mindful of the significant operational implications for the ADF . In particular, there must
be a complete understanding that the Commanding Officer is best placed to assess
the situation to determine if a turnback is feasible, safe and lawful. Furthermore,
any implementation of the turnback policy would need to take careful account of
the availability of major fleet units that would be suitable to conduct and sustain
such operations.

3.80 In the Panel’s view, the conditions noted above and required for effective, lawful
and safe turnbacks of irregular vessels headed for Australia with asylum seekers on
board are not currently met in regard to turnbacks to Indonesia. That situation may
change in the future, in particular if appropriate regional and bilateral arrangements
are in place. It would only do so if the conditions outlined above (paragraph 3.77) are
fully met and, in particular, if there are changes in the understandings that exist with
regional states and if there is clarification of what constitutes safe and lawful conduct by
Australian personnel.

Now you show me where in there it says they recommend DOING it. To me that looks like a list of about ten good reasons NOT to do it. Saying it could be done if ten complicated conditions are met is NOT the same as saying that it's a great idea ... unless you're a cheerleader like AP of course.

Looks like it's you that is doing the ignoring longliar. Tongue

Comprehension remains a very poor skill in your corner. You really do only read what you want to read. The report identified the practical problems with the policy because they considered it a good idea but one which probably couldnt be implemented because of these reasons. You really dont possess the capacity to interpret and comprehend written English very well, do you?

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #78 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:57pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Comprehension remains a very poor skill in your corner. You really do only read what you want to read. The report identified the practical problems with the policy because they considered it a good idea but one which probably couldnt be implemented because of these reasons. You really dont possess the capacity to interpret and comprehend written English very well, do you?

When you get into big school and learn to read and write English instead of your native Gibberish then maybe I may take your English critique slightly seriously. Now here's some English homework to help you learn - show me where they said anything about it being a good idea. You are to provide a quote from the report itself thank you.

Until you do that take it as a given that you're considered among the lesser morons.

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 76974
Gender: male

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #79 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:59pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 7:10pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 5:01pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:51pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 1:47pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 16^th, 2012 at 12:50pm:

Another way of looking at it is that Howard recognised a back policy when he saw it and rectified the situation.

And yet Abbott doesn't recognise that exact same policy despite having lived through it himself as a minister in that government. Instead he demands against all advice that it be reinstated. That's beyond stupid. That borders on a knowing demand for willful murder.

Against all advice? Did Angus Houston not recently advise the government to do what Abbott has been saying for years?

No he didn't. If you had actually bothered to read the recommendations of the panel then you would know that. But feel free to continue wallowing in your ignorance.

Unfortunatley, you reinterpret anything and everything you read and hear to suit your ideology. 'Turning back the boats' was supported except that it required Indonesian support which would not eventuate. Complain all you like but you just ignore what you dont like.

Q: How do you know if gold_medal_liar is lying? A: He's puts up a post.

The advice of the panel was:

Quote:

3.77 Turning back irregular maritime vessels carrying asylum seekers to Australia can be operationally achieved and can constitute an effective disincentive to such ventures, but only in circumstances where a range of operational, safety of life, diplomatic and legal conditions are met:

The State to which the vessel is to be returned would need to consent to such
a return
Turning around a vessel outside Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone (that
is, in international waters) or ‘steaming’ a vessel intercepted and turned around in
Australia’s territorial sea or contiguous zone back through international waters could
only be done under international law with the approval of the State in which the
vessel is registered (the ‘flag State’).
A decision to turn around a vessel would need to be made in accordance with
Australian domestic law and international law, including non-refoulement obligations,
and consider any legal responsibility Australia or operational personnel would
have for the consequences to the individuals on board any vessel that was to be
turned around.
Turning around a vessel would need to be conducted consistently with Australia’s
obligations under the SOLAS Convention, particularly in relation to those on board
the vessel, mindful also of the safety of those Australian officials or Australian
Defence Force (ADF ) personnel involved in any such operation.

3.78 Circumstances have changed since the limited number of turnbacks of irregular vessels
carrying asylum seekers in Australia over a decade ago. The legal context has changed.
The attitudes of many regional governments have evolved, raising the potential cost in
terms of bilateral cooperation generally and coordination on people smuggling activities
in particular. Furthermore, the pre-emptive tactics of people smugglers have adapted.
Irregular vessels carrying asylum seekers can often be quickly disabled or rendered
unsafe to foil any attempted turnbacks and to create a safety of life at sea situation.
In addition, the potential dangers for asylum seekers and Australian personnel in
effecting turnbacks have not diminished. (Attachment 8).

3.79 In implementing a turnback policy, an Australian Government would need to be
mindful of the significant operational implications for the ADF . In particular, there must
be a complete understanding that the Commanding Officer is best placed to assess
the situation to determine if a turnback is feasible, safe and lawful. Furthermore,
any implementation of the turnback policy would need to take careful account of
the availability of major fleet units that would be suitable to conduct and sustain
such operations.

3.80 In the Panel’s view, the conditions noted above and required for effective, lawful
and safe turnbacks of irregular vessels headed for Australia with asylum seekers on
board are not currently met in regard to turnbacks to Indonesia. That situation may
change in the future, in particular if appropriate regional and bilateral arrangements
are in place. It would only do so if the conditions outlined above (paragraph 3.77) are
fully met and, in particular, if there are changes in the understandings that exist with
regional states and if there is clarification of what constitutes safe and lawful conduct by
Australian personnel.

Now you show me where in there it says they recommend DOING it. To me that looks like a list of about ten good reasons NOT to do it. Saying it could be done if ten complicated conditions are met is NOT the same as saying that it's a great idea ... unless you're a cheerleader like AP of course.

Looks like it's you that is doing the ignoring longliar. Tongue

Comprehension remains a very poor skill in your corner. You really do only read what you want to read. The report identified the practical problems with the policy because they considered it a good idea but one which probably couldnt be implemented because of these reasons. You really dont possess the capacity to interpret and comprehend written English very well, do you?

hahaha

you are a funny bugger, I'll give you that.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #80 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:59pm

Gist wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Comprehension remains a very poor skill in your corner. You really do only read what you want to read. The report identified the practical problems with the policy because they considered it a good idea but one which probably couldnt be implemented because of these reasons. You really dont possess the capacity to interpret and comprehend written English very well, do you?

When you get into big school and learn to read and write English instead of your native Gibberish then maybe I may take your English critique slightly seriously. Now here's some English homework to help you learn - show me where they said anything about it being a good idea. You are to provide a quote from the report itself thank you.

Until you do that take it as a given that you're considered among the lesser morons.

You just keep up those delusions of yours that this was anything other than a massive policy defeat of Gillard and a truly impressive win by Abbott. Everyone else is saying exactly that. Or have you read any professional credible political analysts saying that Gillard had a win?

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #81 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 6:14pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Comprehension remains a very poor skill in your corner. You really do only read what you want to read. The report identified the practical problems with the policy because they considered it a good idea but one which probably couldnt be implemented because of these reasons. You really dont possess the capacity to interpret and comprehend written English very well, do you?

When you get into big school and learn to read and write English instead of your native Gibberish then maybe I may take your English critique slightly seriously. Now here's some English homework to help you learn - show me where they said anything about it being a good idea. You are to provide a quote from the report itself thank you.

Until you do that take it as a given that you're considered among the lesser morons.

You just keep up those delusions of yours that this was anything other than a massive policy defeat of Gillard and a truly impressive win by Abbott. Everyone else is saying exactly that. Or have you read any professional credible political analysts saying that Gillard had a win?

No quote eh? I am truly shocked. Roll Eyes

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #82 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 6:18pm

Gist wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 6:14pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:59pm:

Gist wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 5:32pm:

Comprehension remains a very poor skill in your corner. You really do only read what you want to read. The report identified the practical problems with the policy because they considered it a good idea but one which probably couldnt be implemented because of these reasons. You really dont possess the capacity to interpret and comprehend written English very well, do you?

When you get into big school and learn to read and write English instead of your native Gibberish then maybe I may take your English critique slightly seriously. Now here's some English homework to help you learn - show me where they said anything about it being a good idea. You are to provide a quote from the report itself thank you.

Until you do that take it as a given that you're considered among the lesser morons.

You just keep up those delusions of yours that this was anything other than a massive policy defeat of Gillard and a truly impressive win by Abbott. Everyone else is saying exactly that. Or have you read any professional credible political analysts saying that Gillard had a win?

No quote eh? I am truly shocked. Roll Eyes

Why bother? Its not like you can comprehend English that well. Your degrees in art history and cross-stitch must be really useful...

Back to top

IP Logged

Gist

Gold Member

Offline

I am not a sock, I am
a human being!

Posts: 5476

Re: Houston: turning back boats CAN work
Reply #83 - Aug 18^th, 2012 at 6:48pm

gold_medal wrote on Aug 18^th, 2012 at 6:18pm:

Why bother? Its not like you can comprehend English that well. Your degrees in art history and cross-stitch must be really useful...

That reminds me!

I especially like that you keep mentioning those two degrees I mentioned. Because you see, YOU were claiming that truth or lie could be told simply by reading any given article. In fact you said:

gold_medal wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 9:22am:

You mean you actually have to be TOLD the difference between an opinion peice and factual reporting? Are you seriously suggesting that you ability to comprehend the meaning of words and paragraphs is so limited that you are unsure which is which?

And so I threw that claim in about the two degrees and said:

Gist wrote on Aug 8^th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

Now... is that fact or opinion? Surely you can tell the difference.

And obviously you can't tell a feckin' thing because you swallowed it hook line and sinker and seem to think that you can use your obvious stupidity as some kind of taunt against me!

WRONG! Grin

Moreover, you were obviously too stupid to even comprehend what I said. Maybe if I'd written it in Gibberish?

Ah, yes... once again we see that you're one of the lesser morons. No surprises there anyway. Cheesy

Back to top

"When our military goes to war it should be for purposes and objectives clearly in Australia’s interests, not merely because the Americans want some company" - Malcolm Fraser (2012 Whitlam Oration)

IP Logged