Delay on Sky Cops

[Wirraway]

Tues "Herald Sun"

Delay on sky cops
February 3rd, 2004

THE Federal Government's insistence that Australians should not be liable to the death penalty is holding up an agreement for sky marshals to be put on flights between Australia and the US. Government sources said yesterday an agreement was close, with the death penalty issue the only sticking point.

Under the proposed deal, armed Australian sky marshals would be on Qantas flights from Australia to the US, while American marshals flew on United Airline flights from the US to Australia.

The sources said that as United was the US flag carrier, anyone arrested on their flights would come under federal US law, which provides for the death penalty.

However, Australia was insisting that none of its citizens should face the death penalty for anything they did on a United flight.

The Government pressed the US into agreeing the death penalty would not apply in the case of the two Australians held at Guantanamo Bay.

It is understood the US is reluctant to give an open-ended promise to waive the death penalty.

==========================================

[Capt Claret]

Won't sign international treaties so that their own people, military & civilian, can't be prosecuted but want every one else to accept their ways.

:mad: expletive not included..... just.

[tenke]

'Stuff em' is hardly a well thought out comment when considering taking a human life..regardless of any law!

[The Voice]

logically speaking .. In Oz there isn't a death penalty hence the most likely argument for the Govt. stance.

However, if in Rome, suffer their consequences .. anyone breaking another countrys law is subject to that law and subsequent penalty .. but how many Aussies have you heard of that have been put to death for ANY offence even if the sentence has been death? It's been converted or in some cases, they've been pardoned ..

I think the most anyone has suffered pain wise is the 'kid' a few years ago that copped a flogging in Asia ..

But, realistically, if there is no death penalty for ANYONE if travelling on QF, why should there be so if travelling on a non Oz carrier?

That's hardly fair .. by any standard .. stuff em or not ..

(good grief, I'm beginning to sound like a beak!)

[Torres]

Australia has, collectively, determined capital punishment is a barbaric, vindictive and irreversible custom, inappropriate in our society.

And if you don't think mistakes are made, read about Timothy Evans. (http://www.innocent.org.uk/cases/timothyevans/timothyevans.pdf)

The Australian Government is totally correct in seeking a common protocol in dealing with terrorism (or any other crime) on bilateral air services between Australia and the US (and any other country).

One could also have some concerns that gun toting dudes from a gun happy society may find it appropriate to intervene in minor in flight disruptions - inebriated or disruptive passengers etc - to the detriment of other passengers when lead starts flying around in an aluminium cylinder, and the crew are powerless (due to law and locked doors) to intervene.

Voice, your statistics aren't quite correct.... A few years ago two Aussies came home in boxes from an Asian country after being hung for a drug related crime which would probably have earned a relatively minor custodial sentence in Australia.

And before I get dumped on from a great height ....... I am as vehemently opposed to crimes involving aircraft, drugs etc., as any other Australian. Maybe more so.......

[The Voice]

Torres

I am very happy to be corrected, I had completely forgotten about those chaps ..

but even so, 2 verses how many who have gotten themselves into a lot of bother for a chance at 'easy' money ..

sometimes I think the customary/tribal law as exercised by our indigenous folk is the smarter option by way of penalty .. based on an eye for an eye ..

I had my first taste of violence on a dom QF flt the other night .. I deal with this stuff day to day .. but it is completely different in a tin can with a hundred or more people contained therein ..

hats off to the crew .. they did a great job and I think anything that makes it safer for all concerned should be considered and implemented ..

but I don't think we should compromise the australian standard for violent crime .. courts DO get it wrong - once dead, always dead innocent or not.

[Bevan666]

If you commit a crime in a foreign country you are liable under the laws of that country, regardless of the laws of your country of origin.

Now those dudes did commit a capital offence in Malaysia (I used to live down the road from the prison they were in, poor sods) and unfortunately they paid the full penalty.

I do not condone the death penalty one bit, but you need to be aware of the law no matter where you travel, and you can be reasonably certain that a crime at home is also a crime in a foreign land.

Bevan..

[tenke]

Good Morning Directanywhere.
I am certainly not 'pro human life' or 'antiviolence' as such. In fact shooting to disarm for example, may only lead to more danger. I do think, however that it is completely different to say, kill in self defence than to condone the death penalty.
I do not have enough faith in the legal system nor human nature to believe that a society that puts people to death is benefited anymore than one who does not. Quite the opposite in my view.
My comment to you was more meant to highlight; should one be responsible (which you are if you believe in the death penalty and it is applied, even in some instances) for taking a life, then there are consequences far beyond our man made laws. Maybe compassion is called for, because afterall you are only adding to the suffering already caused.

[Pharcarnell]

If these lower life forms are determined to commit multiple murder as they suicide for some belief or other, I don't think the death penalty is inappropriate if they are prevented from completing their actions. At the very least, they won't be around to try it again or train some other misguided wally from attempting the same insane outrage.

I agree the death penalty is the ultimate form of punishment but it should still be available in cases of "no doubt what-so-ever guilt" of outrageous, horrendous crimes.

[Torres]

I did not intend to get into a philosophical discussion on capital punishment, although tenke's statement "I do not have enough faith in the legal system nor human nature to believe that a society that puts people to death is benefited anymore than one who does not" probably reflects my personal views. Well said!

I accept the fact that if one breaks the law in a foreign country, one is subject to the laws of that country, no matter how barbaric or benign those laws may be.

My point was that I believe there must be a common protocol of law enforcement on bilateral air services into Australian air space. The Government must stand firm until that common agreement is reached.

[Capt Claret]

Of course the American's would never convict and subsequently execute an innocent! Australian or otherwise. I'd suggest people try an put themselves in other shoes before they call for such a final punishment.

Think of David Hicks, held without charge or legal representation for over two years, for what? Silly git got caught up in an internal (read domestic) Afghani conflict and happened to be in the wrong country at the wrong time, when GW decided to invade.

Consider how you'd feel if circumstantial evidence indicated that you were a terrorist, and you were to be given a US Military tribunal, where you had no chance of acquittal. Bet you wouldn't be so quick to see the capital scentence carried out then. :oh:

[Torres]

Yes, Capt, very succinctly put. Held without trial, deprived of all domestic and international rights and legal counsel, then declared guilty to the world media by that countries leader.

Not that we Aussies don't have a few skeletons in the closet, in that regard! Nauru may be spelt different to Guantanamo, but similar rights and conventions should apply..........

[Capt Claret]

I haven't asserted that you said anything about Hicks. Nor do I condone the events of Sept 11.

I used Hicks as an example of the duplicity of the US, Torres I think supprted that view, as well as adding the obvious - that Australia is not imune from claims that we too treat people illegally by locking them up or shipping them to another country.

My main point is that the Americans are want to shoot first, ask questions after. If you're dead coz they didn't get the facts straight before they killed you, I guess it's tough titties, as Ma Shiela once said.

Interesting how Bush, Blair and Howard now want to know the facts, though they told the world that the fact were that Iraq posed a real and present threat. This claim has been shown to be unjustifiable.

One cannot justify the invasion of a soverign nation, and the death of countless innocent civilians, based on the premise that the world is better off with out some one like Hussein.

I'd wager that if a poll of the world's population was taken, the majority would vote that GW Bush is a dangerous person. That doesn't justify an invasion of the USA.

Similarly, we in Australia would not look kindly upon some northern neighbour, say China or Indonesia for arguments sake, deciding that against their standards and ideology, Australian's needed saving from Howard, therefore justifying an invasion (for the record I can't stand Howard but don't think he deserves to be overthrown by military force either). Or would we?

[Dark Knight]

Insistence Australians should not be liable to the death penalty takes the thread to different views and diverse areas yet very little discussions, argument or premium is placed upon the rights, sanctity of those killed, or maimed in the World Trade Centre, Bali or resulting from other acts of cowardly murder or terrorism.

Neither is discussion directed at similar rights of the citizens of a country protecting their sovereignty, way of life, many facts being disregarded or omitted.

Who decides who is a refugee?

Governments establish status determination procedures to decide a person's legal standing and rights in accordance to their own legal systems.

How does UNHCR distinguish between a refugee and an economic migrant?

An economic migrant normally leaves a country voluntarily to seek a better life. Should he or she elect to return home, they would continue to receive the protection of their government. Refugees flee because of the threat of persecution and cannot return safely to their homes in the prevailing circumstances.

What are the obligations of a refugee?

Refugees are required to respect the laws and regulations of their country of asylum.
Every refugee has duties to the country in which he finds himself, which require in particular that he conform to its laws and regulations as well as to measures taken for the maintenance of public order.

(Rioting, burning accommodation, escaping, etc, is obeying the law?)

Are there asylum guidelines on stowaways or people rescued at sea?

Shipmasters have an obligation under international law to rescue any persons in distress at sea. In some cases, such as the exodus of Vietnamese boat people, such persons were asylum seekers. Clandestine stowaways may also be asylum seekers.

Persons rescued at sea should be disembarked at the next port of call, where they should be admitted, at least on a temporary basis, pending resettlement. Some flag states of rescuing ships have provided guarantees of resettlement for rescued persons.

(Australia was not the ships next port of call; Hi-jacking the ship was lawful?)

Australian residence is an incredibly precious, rare and highly sought-after commodity as is human life.

Very few acknowledge or report the fact protection of Australia and Australians is the prime requirement, being the Law of the land as required by our Constitution.

The aliens, illegal entrants are required to obey our laws, and of UNHCR; their actions and self-inflicted traumas are contrary to our law and culture only designed to achieve their admission to our country.

Joseph was a good citizen of his country.

Joseph was submissive to Caesar Augustus (the Roman Emperor), when he decreed that a census should be taken.
The word "taxed" refers really to a "registration"--a compiling of information, which later could be used for the purposes of taxation. But Joseph was obedient to the law of the land.

He returned to his native town, as he was expected to do, and did as the authorities said that he should.

When Caesar Augustus called for a census, Joseph dropped the work that he was doing and took his family to Bethlehem to be registered. But to take that step of obedience was not easy.

In Joseph's day, the Romans controlled the country of Israel. And many Jews, all over the land, resented the idea of Roman control, and the idea of a census. They planned to resist with violence.

The Jewish historian Josephus tells how the Zealots (political extremists) made life hard for the people who did go to their hometowns and register. The Zealots often plundered their property and drove away their cattle and set fire to their houses while they were gone.

But Joseph was an obedient servant of God, and this involves being a good citizen of the land.

King Herrod in effect, turned the little family into `refugees’ however, there is not any evidence that Joseph and his family entered Egypt illegally nor did they contravene any immigration or other Egyptian laws of the time.

When the perceived threat that caused the family to move was removed Joseph and his family returned voluntarily to his native land where Jesus initially became a carpenter prior to becoming an itinerant preacher of some note.

There is much more to this story than using what may be an expedient part of the story whilst pursuing various causes or points of view regardless that often truthfully telling the whole story will be inconvenient.

This is not detract from the problem there are many peoples in dire need of help but as happens too often in highlighting the problem, seeking to create compassionate solutions, let alone workable solutions, these are never espoused.

Often the common sense of the people expected to provide the compassion and finances to provide solutions is insulted and defiled. The well being and ability of those expected to provide is never considered; they are evil and inconsiderate for expecting their country to be protected which in the end will provide the means to help those in need.

The Charlatans of Good whilst insulting the common sense, dignity, well-being of those expected to provide fail dismally to understand their theories without solution can never provide help to the people most in need.

Is it suggested that if you are poor, underprivileged, homeless, do not accept or agree with the rules of the society one lives in, etc., it is acceptable to undertake illegal activities, move into peoples homes uninvited, destroy and vandalise taxpayer’s (the peoples) property?

Is it suggested murder, maiming and terrorism should be condoned?

[TIMMEEEE]

Jesus H Christ!!!

With regard to Sky-Marshals just ask the Israeli's about their effectiveness.
On the ground during a turn around in some African-Arabic country they were fired upon by hand held weapons from a nearby perimeter fence.
The skyMarshals killed one and wounded another.

In another case a would-be hijacker was killed attempting to hijack an aircraft and the other subdued.

Only in the last few months a passenger attempting to break into the flight deck was also foiled by these very well trained professionals.

This crap about the death penalty just sounds like red-tape gone wrong.

Remember years ago on a New York subway (when things were really bad) a passenger was battered after being repeatedly humiliated by gangs that used to ride the subway.
Only this day the passenger fought back, killing the gang leader and wounding the other.

When it went to court not a jury would convict this guy because each juror knew they could just as easily be in the same boat in defending themselves.
The judge was fuming needless to say.

And where did the David Hicks crap come into this?
The guy was basically a nut, trained with Al-Quaeda and supported their regime in Afghanistan which basically left them in the stone age.
No music, no magazines, no TV or media and women exposing their faces or legs being stoned to death etc etc etc.

The other "Australian" in Cuba was caught with Al-Quaida members on the wrong side of a very unstable border by Pakistani troops and was quote, "Looking for a safe school for my children".
The family live in NSW and as far as I'm concerned his lame-duck excuse should be treated as suspect.

Anyone supporting that regime deserves everything they get.

With regard to Guantanomo Bay Cuba, very smart of the US to employ these tactics because the US legal system would not only defend and protect these guys but legal stifling by the ACLU and US lawyers just waiting to make a name for themselves would clog whats already a constipated system.

Guantanomo Bay may not be ideal, but it serves a purpose.
Terrorists actually bank on the US justice system supporting them if caught.
G BAy sends out a message that at least the US is serious about acting against terrorists.

Remember the Green Party Senator demanding that Saddam Hussein be "treated with the dignity and respect deservant of a world leader".............yeah right!
This is directly after she stood in the Senate demanding that the Medicare system pay for sex-change operations.

Check Hansaard guys...its true!!

Thats right people......your tax dollar at work and in this case with the Greens Senator yes folks, the lunatics are really running the assylum!

[tenke]

Torres. Directanywhere...
This is a very benefical discussion and I am delighted to read some view points I do respect.

[compressor stall]

Capt Claret,

I conucr entirely with your first post way back on page one.

Bit like saying that they will not send any troops on a UN mission unless they are exempt from the International Criminal Court... foreign justice is great, except..... :rolleyes: