The NT police inquiry into the asylum-seeker boat fire raises more questions than it answers. While exonerating the navy of any wrongdoing, it claims film footage of events showing naval personnel kicking victims away from rescue boats cannot be seen or considered. It concludes that an unnamed and unknown asylum seeker deliberately lit the fire but that there is not enough evidence to charge this person.
Claims that asylum seekers poured petrol all over the boat do not explain how this took place while, for 24 hours, the navy had had control of the boat and the asylum seekers were sitting on the deck floor under armed guard. There is also no explanation as to how a fire could be deliberately started if boarding protocols were carried out. These dictate that naval personnel must secure and contain the passengers immediately under armed guard, then search for and remove weapons and flammable materials.
How is it that the men were sat on the deck floor for 24 hours under guard, next to the leaking petrol drums? All witnesses have commented on the strong smell of petrol. Why did naval personnel allow these frightened men to smoke in close proximity to the fuel?
The inquiry claims that the boat was being transferred to Christmas Island. The navy has admitted that the men were not told what was going to happen to them or where they were going. Indeed, there was evidence that some men were told that they were being sent back to Indonesia without any refugee assessment a practice of the previous government but so far not the Rudd Government.
This invites another question was the navy trying to frighten the asylum seekers or were they intending to push them back to Indonesia?
An urgent coronial inquiry is needed to answer these questions and to ensure that such a tragedy is not repeated. It would seem that this police inquiry is based on half the evidence with a strong bias to ensure that the navy is presented in a good light.
Pamela Curr, Brunswick Vic
A nuclear Iran
Some history for Frank Crichlow (Letters, September 30). Iran's nuclear weapons drive started in 1989, after the Iraq-Iran war. Until Ayatollah Khomeini's regime decided that human rights and democracy were bad things, and that Israel and Jews were even worse, Israel, like much of the rest of the world, enjoyed good relations with Iran.
Since then Iran has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel and actively funded and trained terrorist groups to attack it, yet Mr Crichlow labels Israel as the aggressor.
His claim that Iran needs nuclear weapons because Israel and the US threaten to attack it inverts reality. All threats stated to Iran relate solely to preventing it getting nuclear weapons.
Iran is not an Arab country. Mr Crichlow needs to consider why so many Arab countries have announced nuclear programs over the past two years as it becomes obvious what Iran is up to.
Athol Morris, O'Connor
In the Canberra Times (September 29), an article refers to Iran as a ''rogue state''. Iran is perfectly entitled to have defensive capabilities, missiles included, especially when faced with real threats. Why call it a rogue state when Iran is the one continually being threatened by the US and Israel, which the media never call rogue states?
Both have invaded other countries: both have used WMDs, and Israel has violated the US's own Arms Export Control act. Is this really journalism, or a form of propaganda, to sully in the eyes of the public a country that has attacked no one in 200 years?
Brian Souter, Queanbeyan