The lies continue. If, as accused, Labor has hidden 150 Isis bride files that Albanese said his Socialist government had no contact with.

The Home Affairs Department has denied the reporter access to the details, but it has acknowledged that it has ‘found’ “approximately 150 documents” related to his denied request.

The Department's reason for the refusal to release the documents? It would involve an “unreasonable diversion of the department's resources”. Not that it would reveal the truth about the government's claim that they have done nothing to ‘help’ women to come back to Australia?

Since 2022, the Albanese government has allowed 16 ISIS back into Australia, even though that broke the law when they left Australia for ISIS.

The PM has said “more than 20 times” that nobody in the government had supported the women. Minister Burke said that they had returned “of their own accord”, when it has been shown that the government could have denied them entry. The government's and activists’ claims that they could not is a lie.

Source: https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/labor-hides-150-isis-bride-files-after-albanese-said-government-had-no-contact-with-the-cohort/news-story/546662abbf079bee56ee994ab5b24aa7

>>It would involve an “unreasonable diversion of the department's resources”<<

Maybe the Home Affairs Department only has 5 people working there at the moment and 2 of them are on leave?

Hi AC,

I checked that out, its true, one is on stress leave, Loretta previously known as Fred due to the horrible thing Nigel said; "Loretta, your green earrings clash with your blue ensemble, I would have warn something in pink myself sweetheart." Loretta, felt completely and utterly humiliated and victimised by Nigel over such an outlandish barb directed at an innocent LGBOTA person. Nigel has been suspended on full pay, and will receive intensive counselling to correct his misogyny in the workplace. Felix the field officer, who would normally handle this matter, is still off on compassionate leave following the untimely death of his much loved partner of two weeks, 'Phe-Phe' the cat, late last year, hopefully he will be able to return to work sometime in 2027. Mary, is unavailable as she is participating in a group development program; "The value of Macrame in the work place" hopefully this will release Mary's inner tensions and she will once more be a valuable member of the team! That only leaves Steven, a grade 8 officer with 20 years of experience in the field. Unfortunately Steven went for morning tea in 2014, and hasn't been back to his desk since, probably using up his accrued tea leave, but on his return I'm sure he'll give the case priority! Hopefully a redacted preliminary report will be available by 2032.

David Flint posits that the biggest lie told by Australia’s worst government is not the fifty-times-denied imposition of new and destructive taxation. It is the lie that it is a government of the centre. The most hard left government ever, it favours the “Evil Axis” over our American ally whenever it can get away with doing so: consequently wrecking our economy, rendering Australia defenceless, and insulting the U.S President in a way that even the Communist dictator Xi does not.

The biggest lie of all was that the ISIS sympathisers and supporters could not be refused entry to the country whose laws they broke when they left - the Criminal Code Act 1995 makes it a criminal offence for Australians to travel overseas to fight with or support terrorists.

Australians are prohibited from fighting for or supporting foreign armed forces or non-state armed groups without explicit authorisation from the Australian Government.

Jail terms of 10 to 25 years can be imposed. What the women did is not classed as a bit of a weekend giggle; but previously criminals who have returned to Australia have just been given home detention and added to the 18,000 security risks supposedly under the eye of our not-up-to-it security forces.

Better for Australia to leave them in Syria.

Passports can be cancelled under the Australian Passports Act 2005.

The Albanese government could have legally and operationally blocked or delayed the return of Australian women linked to ISIS.

Both Albanese and Burke lied that they could not block entry merely because the women were Australian citizens.

Legislation that would have put all doubts out of these moron's minds - the Criminal Code Amendment (Keeping Australia Safe) Bill 2026 - was blocked in the Senate by the piddling Greens. But, the Socialists probably would not have used it anyway, thinking as they do that Australian laws can be thwarted by their ideology and their bare-faced lies.

Sadly, we can't rely on the other side to protect Australia either. The Liberals continue to fall apart, with the revelation that shadow home affairs minister Jon Duniam will retire before the next election because his ‘kids need him’, so he is “genuinely” “switching out for that reason”. What a wimp.

He told Angus Taylor some time ago that he was going to jump ship, but Taylor has kept it a secret.

Duniam says that he is grateful to the Liberal Party. Well, that’s nice. He doesn't give a stuff about the voters who put him in the Senate where he just needed to be on the ticket to get there with zero self-help. It's not as if he had to work at getting into the lower house.

Worse, he has been praised by the real minister, Tony Burke.

What hope do voters have against such a pally uniparty.

Duniam's loss will be cheap, though, as no byelection is needed to replace him with another Liberal drongo in the Senate - probably a wet.

The Liberals, in their arrogance, will never learn that they, not One Nation, are the reason for their continuing fall to the bottom.

Jonno Duniam, although a bit more conservative than I would like, his intelligent understanding of issues is well regarded. Duniam's loss to the parliamentary debate will be hard felt by his side of politics. Imagine an election was held where an intelligent, articulated person like Duniam is replaced by some half-wit knuckle-dragger from One Nation. Who knows there could be 20 or 30 such meat heads from ON in the next parliament.

p/s I think there will be a large number of incumbents on the Noalition side who don't contest the next election. You think things are bad with Fungus Taylor as co-pilot to the Mad Monk now, just give em' another 12 months and they will totally crash and burn, straight into One Nation HQ!

I still think we cannot make laws for what our citizens do in another country.
We have no way of enforcing our laws in that other place.
We should concentrate on what, if anything, the women have done right here in Australia.
Which appears to be very little.
And in any case, all persons deserve a second chance.
If they are likely to offend in Australia, it will soon become obvious.
And then the law can move in legitimately.

Hi Ipso Fatso,

You make some good points there, it is difficult when offences are committed in other countries, particularly in a war zone like the Middle East. Governments of both persuasions have had to let Australian citizens return to Australia, that is a basic right in a free democratic society like ours. I'm sure this government like the previous Coalition government wished they had never heard of these ISIS brides.

Their offence comes under the Criminal Code Act 1995, Part 5,5.

They have offended against Australian law. It doesn't matter what they did overseas.

The ignorance of some posters making fools of themselves is pathetic. Of course whatever they do in a foreign country is that country's problem. It's their breach of Australian law that is our problem.

And, while everyone might be entitled to a second chance, that chance comes after they have paid the price for their criminality. So far, past offenders who have been allowed back by weak, lying government, have merely been put on good behaviour bonds and home detention. Whether or not that will deter them in the future remains to be seen.

Their "punishment" certainly did not determine the current ISIS brides, allowed back innto Australia.

Hi ttbn,

I don't know what your claim to fame is as a legal eagle, but I doubt it extends beyond something regurgitated from the Fish N' Chip lady.

"allowed back by weak, lying government, have merely been put on good behaviour bonds and home detention" What do you want, summery execution by firing squad?

You demand government goes outside the law, and imposes a political solution to a legal problem. That is what totalitarian governments do, not the liberal democratic kind we have in Australia. Its clear that people like you are in favour of a totalitarian regime, provided they agree with your line of thinking.

Ipso Fatso,

"I still think we cannot make laws for what our citizens do in another country."

So you are saying that Aussie pedophiles who abuse kids in other countries shouldn't face the music for it in Australia? Maybe you were only talking about crimes by the Isis brides? I just wonder why the hell Magoo spent so much public money bringing them back, then denied that he'd done anything. What a liar.

Under Sec. 119.2, (Entering declared areas) the maximum penalty is 10 years imprisonment; certainly not as piddling as home detention for a short period and being added to the watch list of 18,000 that cannot be administered properly by Australia’s Mickey Mouse security services.

" Maybe you were only talking about crimes by the Isis brides? "

Come to think of it Ipso, there might be some overlap. One of the accused had a slave who was repeatedly raped by the husband and son as well as being physically abused by all.

"So you are saying that Aussie pedophiles who abuse kids in other countries shouldn't face the music for it in Australia?"

That is exactly what I am saying.
When a crime is committed in another country, it is subject to the laws in that country, not ours.
Think about that for a while?

Oh, I see. Like Julian Shipton releasing all those names which likely got a lot of people tortured and killed? I think that Jules remarked that if something happened to them they had it coming. All okay with you because it happened in another country. Sounds a bit like getting off on a technicality. Now some people who support Jules's innocence also think that George Pell got off on a technicality, but they think that an injustice. As it was, the High Court considered that a guilty until proven innocent approach was taken at his trial and appeal and quashed his conviction.

As I said in a post yesterday, the crimes that were committed come under the Crimes Act and sec. 5.5.

Whatever the criminals now returning to Australia did in Syria or wherever should be the responsibility of the country where they did it in. Australia's action should be restricted to the Australian law they have broken, nothing else.

However, ‘extraterrestrial jurisdiction’ and international treaties seem to hold Australia to dealing with crimes by Australians, “regardless of geographical borders”. Including such matters as child sex offences, terrorism, and ‘modern’ slavery, for example.

As an anti-globalist, I believe that all countries should deal with whatever is against the law in their countries. Just because busy bodies get offended by what Australians do overseas does not necessarily mean a law has broken in that overseas country.

But bringing up child sex offences has taken the focus off this thread which is about Australians who have broken AUSTRALIAN law by going to a proscribed area of the world.

Posters concerned about Australian paedophiles in foreign countries should start their own threads. But, here are a couple of reasons that Australia has no need to be doing other countries’ prosecution for them. It could be said that Australia is interfering in other countries’ sovereignty or even suggesting that these countries are not capable of looking after their own people. Not a good look for the multiculturalists and the assertions that all cultures are equal to ours that our government is always banging on about.

“Authorities in countries like Indonesia, Cambodia, and the Philippines frequently arrest, prosecute, and imprison foreign child sex offenders. For instance, Indonesian courts have actively handed down significant prison sentences to Australian men convicted of child sexual abuse”.

“Regional governments (such as in Indonesia) work closely with the Australian Federal Police (AFP) to flag known offenders. Australian border authorities and foreign immigration agencies frequently stop registered offenders at the airport and return them to Australia on the next flight”.

ttbn,

What interests me is the inconsistency of reasoning that gets exposed. For example, Ben Roberts-Smith is on trial here for alleged crimes in another country, yet I don't see the usual suspects coming to his aid as they did with Jules.

Fester

Read the post above. You are as capable as anyone else of starting threads to express your opinions.

Hi Fester,
Yes the government is full of inconsistencies.
IDF are coming here for holidays after committing war crimes.
I'm not sure they're being screened.

I know Roberts Smith is an Aussie, but I won't support his war crimes.
That's like supporting a cop bashing a member of the public.

Fester,

Of course, if you do bite the bullet and get into starting threads that keep OLO going, you will be confronted by idiots. However, they are easily ignored.

One of these is Armchair Critic, a real ratbag, who spews absolute rubbish, and has decided that BRS did commit ‘war crimes’ before the man has been to trial. He says, “I won't support his war crimes”.

But, there are only two of these morons, and they cannot be allowed to deter anyone from using the OLO opportunity to express opinions. You don't have to argue with morons or even recognise their existence. Never explain. Never apologise for what you believe.

Didn't he shoot an unarmed man and woman and kick someone off a cliff or something?

Google? did ben roberts smith shoot an unarmed man and woman and kick someone off a cliff

AI Overview
Yes, a Federal Court judge found these allegations to be substantially true.
In a landmark defamation trial in 2023, the court ruled that Ben Roberts-Smith was complicit in or directly responsible for the murder of several unarmed Afghan civilians during his deployment.

Specifically, the court's findings included:
Kicking an unarmed man off a cliff:
During a 2012 mission in Darwan, Roberts-Smith was found to have kicked a handcuffed and defenceless Afghan man off a steep cliff into a dry riverbed and ordered his subordinate soldiers to shoot and kill him.

Shooting of unarmed men: Among the murders proven true by the judge, Roberts-Smith was involved in machine-gunning an unarmed man and pressuring an inexperienced soldier to execute an elderly, unarmed Afghan civilian.

There is no official court finding or prominent media record of him shooting an unarmed man and woman in a single event, though the specific murders involved defenceless Afghan males.
Despite these extensive civil findings, Roberts-Smith has not been criminally convicted of war crimes in relation to these incidents.

Are you saying this isn't true?
Or are you hoping it isn't true?
Or you don't really care about what he did or didn't do and are defending him as a soldier for our country anyway?

What if you were born in Afghanistan instead ttbn?
What if you were that elderly, unarmed Afghan civilian BRS had pressured a lesser experienced soldier to execute?

Wouldn't you hope that someone out there actually gave a shite about you and your miserable arse and thought it was wrong that you were killed for nothing in the desert next to your stinking old donkey by some foreign bastard invader?

Hi AC,

Yes, you cannot do X, Y and Z overseas, then expect to return to Australia without consequence, despite some here believing that anything goes outside Australia's jurisdiction. I think that sort of thinking a bit amoral.

In that case, Australia is not using Australian law.
It is applying International law instead.
And this should be made clear.

Hi Ipso Fatso,

I support the principles of international law as a means of preventing state sanctioned criminality being legitimised by enacting domestic laws. Australia and other liberal democracies take their obligations in regards to international law very seriously.

The following link from the House of Commons Library gives a good outline of what it involves. Imagine if it was for the principle of international law the Nuremberg trials would never had taken place.

http://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9010/#:~:text=This%20briefing%20provides%20a%20brief,states%20breach%20their%20international%20obligations.