|
>> My concern is how those asylum seekers got released without authorities even
>> having a clue of their potential actions - >> were they just chucked out, given welfare, >> or did they pass some kind of security check? Was that the security check with the yes/no question: "are you sure you are not a terrorist". Or was that the one where they ring up the local despot and say "is this person really in danger of being persecuted by you because of their political beliefs?"
Right, I thought so. That's not the way security is handled (or should be), even though the first question was similar to what you agreed should be asked to all newcomers to Australia. Seemingly as I am the most vocal proponnent/opponent of the strawman regieme, I thought that you would of understood, that if under AbL's benevolent rule, you wouldn't be released if you couldn't be ruled out as a threat. Somehow I see my plan as tighter than the poms?
Yes, the 'authorities' were probably incompetent. Government employees will always be incompetent - that's why they work for the government instead of working in the real world. I like to bash Government, but the Bush's were very successful in the private sector. Mc Namara was the CEO of Ford. Menzies was a very good lawyer and Thatcher had a PhD in chem. It's much easier to train a government employee to keep people outside the walls than to train them to track down suspicious people in a population with strong personal liberties and rights to privacy, and the right to non-cooperation with law enforcement authorities. You think so? Australia didn't experience terrorism during the Olympics. Then why are there 50000 or so illegals from UK, NZ and USA then? And although these mad morrocans were asylum seekers, the s11 terrorists were in fact on work or study visas within the US. Even if you end all movement across borders, civilians and Governemnt can be hit O/S, ala Lockerbie and Nairobi. Not getting involved in extraneous entanglements and arresting or blowing away would be terrorists first still is my preferred option.
>> If it is the first option, even my "soft" approach to asylum seekers isn't this
>> silly (other readers refer to previous posts), nor does it subsidise asylum
>> seekers at tax payers expense (only for their period of detainment. A forty-eight hour turn-around on deportation would minimize the level of subsidy too. Forgetting that about 80% of asylum seekers become refugees, what you are saying is that you wouldn't accept them at all. We don't have an obligation to do so, but if we reckon we are such a beacon of freedom, then we should accept people who flee from murderers like Pol Pot and Hussein.
Even a policy of 'indefinite detainment until deportation' would stop the flow as soon as the conviction behind the policy became apparent. It's the namby-pamby should-we-shouldn't-we approach which is causing the problems. I don't even see what's so "namby pamby" about either what I propose or even the current system. I don't think it's smart to subsidise people (at all really) who probably have difficulty in giving back (such an ugly way to put it), given I would scrap Pay TV and whatever luxury get up they have, but you get locked up intil you are assessed, then either released with conditions, deported or arrested and tried.
>> If it is the second choice, then obviously the system needs to be reviewed and
>> tightened. Mandatory is another option but sort of integrates into my idea
>> about security checks for release. Otherwise there is the stupid option of
>> rounding up and deporting all suspicious types of people, Arabs or Muslim,
>> violently anti Government and so on, that diverts resources away from the
>> intelligence community who found this ricin stash (and who probably would be
>> observing radical Islamicists and Mc Veigh types). McVeigh types .. you mean like libertarians? :-) He was? I suppose the Democrats had Mr la Rouche, and the Republicans had Nixon and Ann Coulter. That's surprising and no too surprising at the same time - conspiracy theorists, paticularly in the US typically have Libertarian like complaints and manifestos - even though they usually propose as solutions are likely to be white power or communism, which are quite unlibertarian. Just like the bombings.
| 
