Remember that this government let into Australia David Petraeus, a convicted criminal who leaked info to impress his girlfriend. But it blocks Chelsea Manning who leaked to reveal war crimes and US atrocities.
-
-
Replying to @BernardKeane
People with convictions are let into Australia all the time to visit, as long as the convictions are declared and they’re not considered by the visa decision makers as antithetical to Australian safety, security, peace etc. I don’t know the assessment behind either of these cases
3 replies 11 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @quaedvliegs
Interesting. Thanks. This was James Comey's assessment of Petraeus.pic.twitter.com/uYaPBgNqwl
3 replies 7 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @BernardKeane
I’ve read a lot of material on both cases & remember the details of both well. I noted the judicial outcomes with interest - it reinforced my view of variability in any system of jurisprudence & also the influencing factors on judicial outcomes for individuals.
3 replies 4 retweets 6 likes -
Replying to @quaedvliegs @BernardKeane
What I have no perspective on is the decision making on the comparable cases of Petraeus and Manning as I had no involvement in the Petraeus decision and obviously none in the pending Manning decision.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @quaedvliegs @BernardKeane
Of course the relatively new Section 501 of the Migration Act sets a ‘character test’ which, among other criteria, considers a substantial criminal conviction as a feature which influences a decision to decline the issue of a visa on the basis of character.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Good point about subjectivity. I'd have thought leaking note books containing “identities of covert officers, code word information, war strategy, intelligence capabilities, diplomatic talks" and chats with the president was "substantial". But that's just me.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.