Australia Navy entered Indonesia waters six times

[Mighty Caty]

Good discussion actually....The different thing between Indonesia and Australia is that we treat the refugees no matter what....we treat them well here.....not like you who put them into Papua Nugini....we have moral standard....

I have already said, in my very first post on this matter, that Australian are condemnable for the issue under the moral ground, but that does not mean Australian break any laws sending those people back to Indonesia or Nauru.

Being immoral does not equate to being illegal, if they do, i would have lose my job a long time ago.

 

[Developereo]

@Mighty Caty

Let's review your claims one by one (some repetition.to collate everything into one place).

Start with the easy ones first

A- You are wrong when you claim that Sweden doesn't accept asylum seekers form third countries.

Migration and asylum policy

Sweden must take its share of the responsibility for the international protection of refugees. An important part of this responsibility is to provide protection - through resettlement in Sweden - for people fleeing in a third country who do not have access to any other permanent solution.

What it means is that, if the applicant can't get asylum in the intermediate (third) country, then Sweden will consider his/her request.

B- You are wrong when you claim that an asylum seeker cannot apply at the Swedish border.

Asylum regulations - Swedish Migration Board

A person who wants to receive protection in Sweden must submit an application for asylum at one of the Migration Board application units, or with the border police when entering Sweden. The Migration Board cannot approve an application which has been submitted at a Swedish embassy. Those who are not able to come to Sweden to apply for protection can turn to the UNHCR.

C- You are wrong when you claim that asylum seekers must come directly to Australia "without delay".

http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf

4. The expression "coming directly" in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly" and each case must be judged on its merits.

D- You are wrong when you claim that Aus. Navy can ignore UNHCR rules and only apply UNCLOS rules on the high seas.

The fact is that, when Aus. Navy takes any action, they agree to abide by ALL laws that Australia has agreed to, not just some, not pick and chose. When there is a conflict of rules, there should be guidelines. And the UNHCR guideline above handles precisely this situation.

UNHCR - Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures

Interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection,

So, when they take asylum seekers into custody, it becomes Australia's responsibility to make sure that any action taken does not result in them being denied access to international protection, Simply put, Australia can't just throw them out and say "it's not my problem what happens to you from now on".

And, finally, coming to the distinction between a refugee and an asylum seeker,

E- No one is disputing that the term refugee refers to someone who has had their claim approved. However, the UNHCR makes it clear that the spirit and intent of the Convention covers asylum seekers as well as refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.pdf

Can a country that has not signed the 1951 Convention refuse to admit a person seeking protection

Combine that with the UNHCR definition of an asylum seeker,

About Refugees

Asylum-Seeker an individual who is seeking international protection.

This means the Convention is also intended to cover asylum seekers requesting to become refugees. This is not just my opinion, this is repeated again and again in UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusions and documents.

 

[Maxtini]

He's just playing with words~ finding any discrepancies and possible ambiguity to make silly justification

It has been clear from UNHCR Executive Commission Conclusion, how and what each words in the convention and protocol be interpreted and understood, so that any ambiguities be resolved. A fact which he constantly ignored, and I find it perplexing~

 

[Developereo]

He's just playing with words~ finding any discrepancies and possible ambiguity to make silly justification

It has been clear from UNHCR Executive Commission Conclusion, how and what each words in the convention and protocol be interpreted and understood, so that any ambiguities be resolved. A fact which he constantly ignored, and I find it perplexing~

He's a she.

The UNHCR publications keep reaffirming a broader interpretation of the Convention which applies, not just to people granted refugee status, but also to those people entitled to refugee status -- a fact which includes asylum seekers until such time as a competent authority rejects their claim to such entitlement.

 

[Mighty Caty]

@Mighty Caty

Let's review your claims one by one (some repetition.to collate everything into one place).

Start with the easy ones first

A- You are wrong when you claim that Sweden doesn't accept asylum seekers form third countries.

Migration and asylum policy

Sweden must take its share of the responsibility for the international protection of refugees. An important part of this responsibility is to provide protection - through resettlement in Sweden - for people fleeing in a third country who do not have access to any other permanent solution.

What it means is that, if the applicant can't get asylum in the intermediate (third) country, then Sweden will consider his/her request.

B- You are wrong when you claim that an asylum seeker cannot apply at the Swedish border.

Asylum regulations - Swedish Migration Board

A person who wants to receive protection in Sweden must submit an application for asylum at one of the Migration Board application units, or with the border police when entering Sweden. The Migration Board cannot approve an application which has been submitted at a Swedish embassy. Those who are not able to come to Sweden to apply for protection can turn to the UNHCR.

C- You are wrong when you claim that asylum seekers must come directly to Australia "without delay".

http://www.unhcr.org.au/pdfs/detentionguidelines.pdf

4. The expression "coming directly" in Article 31(1), covers the situation of a person who enters the country in which asylum is sought directly from the country of origin, or from another country where his protection, safety and security could not be assured. It is understood that this term also covers a person who transits an intermediate country for a short period of time without having applied for, or received, asylum there. No strict time limit can be applied to the concept "coming directly" and each case must be judged on its merits.

D- You are wrong when you claim that Aus. Navy can ignore UNHCR rules and only apply UNCLOS rules on the high seas.

The fact is that, when Aus. Navy takes any action, they agree to abide by ALL laws that Australia has agreed to, not just some, not pick and chose. When there is a conflict of rules, there should be guidelines. And the UNHCR guideline above handles precisely this situation.

UNHCR - Conclusion on Protection Safeguards in Interception Measures

Interception measures should not result in asylum-seekers and refugees being denied access to international protection,

So, when they take asylum seekers into custody, it becomes Australia's responsibility to make sure that any action taken does not result in them being denied access to international protection, Simply put, Australia can't just throw them out and say "it's not my problem what happens to you from now on".

And, finally, coming to the distinction between a refugee and an asylum seeker,

E- No one is disputing that the term refugee refers to someone who has had their claim approved. However, the UNHCR makes it clear that the spirit and intent of the Convention covers asylum seekers as well as refugees.

http://www.unhcr.org/4ec262df9.pdf

Can a country that has not signed the 1951 Convention refuse to admit a person seeking protection

Combine that with the UNHCR definition of an asylum seeker,

About Refugees

Asylum-Seeker an individual who is seeking international protection.

This means the Convention is also intended to cover asylum seekers requesting to become refugees. This is not just my opinion, this is repeated again and again in UNHCR Executive Committee Conclusions and documents.

Just as I said, talking to you is just turning round and round

You give the exact same point, with the exact same explanation and the same word

I can stay here and tell you, your understanding is wrong for a million post, and you can come back with the same stuff over 1 million time, and this is going no where

I had presented my case here, seeing you do not have anything thing new to offer beside saying I am wrong and give me the same ol' point over and over again, I am retiring from this discussion

Unless somehow we can find an impartial judge and rule whose point is legitimate, we are just like 2 9 yeasts old going at it

I am not prepare to spent the next month keep repeating my point here over and over again, let just call it whatever that is, this is pointless as we do not have a ruling authority here, we can literally do it forever

He's just playing with words~ finding any discrepancies and possible ambiguity to make silly justification

It has been clear from UNHCR Executive Commission Conclusion, how and what each words in the convention and protocol be interpreted and understood, so that any ambiguities be resolved. A fact which he constantly ignored, and I find it perplexing~

Oh well and you are just twisting my word without any positive construction

 

[Developereo]

Just as I said, talking to you is just turning round and round

I showed you why your claims are all wrong, but all you can do is repeat your opinions -- which contradict UNHCR..

I can understand why you are angry when you were exposed to be ignorant of Sweden's own laws, despite your claims.

 

[Mighty Caty]

I showed you why your claims are all wrong, but all you can do is repeat your opinions -- which contradict UNHCR..

I can understand why you are angry when you were exposed to be ignorant of Sweden's own laws, despite your claims.

What a joke and an utter waste of time!

We'll, you can think whatever you want, that does not change anything

You did not show me my case is wrong, you show me what you think my case is wrong, unless you are a judge or lawyer of sort (highly doubt you are one by your mentality) what you think stays what you think, in your mind, you may think you corrected me, but in the end, unless there is a impartial judge here supporting your view, you view mean nothing but merely a public opinion

I am a lawyer, I present my case, and then I wait for a person higher up than me to judge my case I presented, as a lawyer, I don't judge anything, so if you think you have correct me and shamed me, well, that would be your own admission, let's everyone be the judge on that.

As far as I concern, there are nothing more left to say. And nothing more to learn from here. I am here to discuss, not to win an argument, as any intelligent person will tell you, if there are no judge, no one can possibly win an argument.

 

[Developereo]

We'll, you can think whatever you want, that does not change anything

Your opinions contradict official documents from UNHCR and the Swedish government. I demonstrated that with links to official websites which directly contradict your opinions.

Post #77 details the gap between your opinions and reality.

I am a lawyer

And not a good one, evidently, who can't distinguish between her own opinions and official statements.

Rest assured I will never hire you.

 

[Mighty Caty]

Your opinions contradict official documents from UNHCR and the Swedish government.



And not a good one, evidently, who can't distinguish between her own opinions and official statements.

Rest assured I will never hire you.

Just Because you think so, then I am?

As far as I concern, that's your personal opinion, you think I am a failure then I must be a failure? What are you? God?

As I said I am not going to partake on this topic until new information is being discussed, it won't work even if you trying to harass me into it.

As far as I concern, your word mean nothing more than anyone's else

 

[Reashot Xigwin]

Rear Admiral James Goldrick explains what led to Australian ships entering Indonesian waters - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

You were saying?

Retired naval commander baffled by navy's explanation for entering Indonesian waters
Date
March 3, 2014

Tom Allard
National Affairs Editor
View more articles from Tom Allard

Follow Tom on Twitter

Baffled: Recently retired Lieutenant Commander Barry Learoyd. Photo: Supplied

The ''inadvertent'' and repeated entry of Australian vessels into Indonesian territory defied comprehension, with the precise co-ordinates of the nation's maritime boundary typically programmed into the navy's electronic navigation systems, a former border protection commander has said.

The comments from Barry Learoyd, recently retired after a 43-year Royal Australian Navy career that included commanding vessels that interdicted asylum seeker boats, comes after a review into the incidents made the revelation that the vessels had not been given information about where Indonesia's sea border was situated

''It's really difficult to understand,'' Lieutenant Commander Learoyd said. ''The Indonesian archipelago and the archipelagic baseline [the formal name for Indonesia's maritime boundary] is well known to the Australian navy and well known to commanders and senior officers. It's part of the training we all get.''

Moreover, the co-ordinates of the boundary - which extends beyond the standard 12 nautical miles from Indonesia's coast at times - were usually in the electronic charting systems installed on navy vessels operating in the area, Commander Learoyd said.

''In the navigational display systems, you can overlay the boundary over your current position,'' he said. ''If that's not working, there are almanacs and manuals you can refer to.''

Customs and the navy released a heavily redacted version of its review into the incidents on February 19, describing each of the incursions as ''inadvertent'' and the ''result of miscalculation of Indonesian maritime boundaries by Australian crews'' .

But the review also said that neither the vessels tasked with turning back boats to the very edge of Indonesia's sea border, nor the headquarters overseeing the operations, were provided with information about where the boundary was actually situated.

''Indonesian maritime boundaries constituted important operational information that should have been provided by the headquarters to the commanders of vessels assigned to Operation Sovereign Borders,'' it said. ''This information should also have been available in the shore headquarters and used as a reference for task oversight and approval recommendations.''

Commander Learoyd said the finding was ''very surprising''.

Even so, the review blamed the crews on the vessels for the breaches, and navy and Customs commanders are facing disciplinary action, including possible demotion.

Operation Sovereign Borders is run not by the military but by the Customs and Border Protection Service. Its overall commander is Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, a three-star army general on secondment.

General Campbell was not at the headquarters when the highly delicate and difficult tow back operations took place, a Senate estimates hearing was told last week. Despite this, and the failure to provide vessels with the co-ordinates of Indonesia's maritime boundary, he has not been censured.

A Customs spokeswoman declined to say whether navy and Customs vessels had electronic navigation systems capable of being programmed with Indonesia's maritime borders. She also declined to confirm or deny, as reported by asylum seekers, that the vessels turned off their lights as they approached Indonesian territory to avoid detection.

Asylum seekers have claimed their own GPS systems indicated they were brought to within 7.5 nautical miles of Indonesia's land, well inside its maritime boundary.

The government has refused to say how far into Indonesian maritime territory the Australian vessels travelled, rebuffing requests for information from MPs during Senate estimates hearings. It is understood that three of the incursions were by two navy frigates, HMAS Parramatta and HMAS Stuart. The other three were by at least one Customs vessel.


Read more: Retired naval commander baffled by navy's explanation for entering Indonesian waters

Like I said earlier its either the RAN are the most incompetent Naval forces on the planet or are they just deliberately & willingly enter into Indonesia's water.