Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has no sympathy for the Australians arrested in Bali for drug smuggling. The video evidence seems to suggest their guilt, and the Indonesian Courts proceed on the basis of the inquisitorial rather than adversarial style of justice common to countries whose legal system is based on Roman law rather than common law. The implication is that there’s no presumption of innocence. By contrast, the government has been moving mountains to ensure that Schapelle Corby doesn’t face the death penalty. I make no comment about Ms Corby’s innocence or guilt, but I do wonder if the media machine that’s focussing attention on her case makes some difference to the government’s response.
Elsewhere: Posts at Catallaxy and wsacaucus.org. Rowen dissects Downer’s logic.
Update: Given the turn comments have taken, it’s worth drawing attention to Andrew Bartlett’s post on the death penalty.
And the media circus has nothing at all to do with the fact that Corby is young and pretty, whereas the other 9 are probably, as their own lawyer said, “stupid”.
And the media circus has nothing at all to do with the fact that Corby is young and pretty, whereas the other 9 are probably, as their own lawyer said, “stupid”.
What’s with Ms Corby’s name, anyway? Is it the female Jaidyn?
And why the ‘c’? Not a German name, surely?
Come to think of it, why is Windschuttle spelled that way?
What’s with Ms Corby’s name, anyway? Is it the female Jaidyn?
And why the ‘c’? Not a German name, surely?
Come to think of it, why is Windschuttle spelled that way?
To be fair, the Corby thing has been going on for a while and the “Bali Nine” got sprung only a few days ago. Its too early to draw much from the media coverage or about what the fed govt will do.
To be fair, the Corby thing has been going on for a while and the “Bali Nine” got sprung only a few days ago. Its too early to draw much from the media coverage or about what the fed govt will do.
Corby may be young and pretty, but I think the concern in Australia is that she could be executed for something she probably did not do. The case against her does not make much sense:
1) Why would anyone import drugs *to* Bali?
2) Why would anyone who wanted to import drugs make no serious attempt to conceal them?
3) There is no evidence that Corby was a dealer or user in Australia.
4) There is an at least plausible explanation of how the drugs did get into her bags.
I doubt an Australian jury would convict.
Those of the Bali nine found with drugs strapped to their bodies are almost certainly guilty, and even with the admittedly fairly high levels of stupidity on display could not fail to know what devastation heroin causes back in Australia. Unlike some of my libertarian comrades, I have no trouble with them serving time as punishment. But killing them would be outrageous, and I hope the government would do everything it could to avoid that.
Corby may be young and pretty, but I think the concern in Australia is that she could be executed for something she probably did not do. The case against her does not make much sense:
1) Why would anyone import drugs *to* Bali?
2) Why would anyone who wanted to import drugs make no serious attempt to conceal them?
3) There is no evidence that Corby was a dealer or user in Australia.
4) There is an at least plausible explanation of how the drugs did get into her bags.
I doubt an Australian jury would convict.
Those of the Bali nine found with drugs strapped to their bodies are almost certainly guilty, and even with the admittedly fairly high levels of stupidity on display could not fail to know what devastation heroin causes back in Australia. Unlike some of my libertarian comrades, I have no trouble with them serving time as punishment. But killing them would be outrageous, and I hope the government would do everything it could to avoid that.
Put yourself in one of the Bali nine’s shoes. It’s far too easy to dismiss them as just plain stupid people and be done with them.
Knowing the sort of punishment that was likely to be on offer (as most of the Bali nine probably did), you would have to be pretty desperate for money to strap drugs to yourself and try smuggling them into or out of Indonesia. Assuming that these people are to some degree rational, I think you really have to question the underlying motivations these people had for agreeing to be drug mules.
Were any of them forced? Did any of them have drug habits themselves, or debts they had to pay off?
Put yourself in one of the Bali nine’s shoes. It’s far too easy to dismiss them as just plain stupid people and be done with them.
Knowing the sort of punishment that was likely to be on offer (as most of the Bali nine probably did), you would have to be pretty desperate for money to strap drugs to yourself and try smuggling them into or out of Indonesia. Assuming that these people are to some degree rational, I think you really have to question the underlying motivations these people had for agreeing to be drug mules.
Were any of them forced? Did any of them have drug habits themselves, or debts they had to pay off?
“But killing them would be outrageous, and I hope the government would do everything it could to avoid that.”
Why? Just because it conflicts with your ideology? As I said before, we should not be trying to get our citizens special treatment. The Indonesian punishment is death, they are guilty, so death they shall recieve and I have no qualms with that.
“But killing them would be outrageous, and I hope the government would do everything it could to avoid that.”
Why? Just because it conflicts with your ideology? As I said before, we should not be trying to get our citizens special treatment. The Indonesian punishment is death, they are guilty, so death they shall recieve and I have no qualms with that.
I don’t recall you having the same argument about the Fijian judge who sentenced that gay Australian to prison, Nic. Should Australians have to put up with homophobic law overseas?
I don’t recall you having the same argument about the Fijian judge who sentenced that gay Australian to prison, Nic. Should Australians have to put up with homophobic law overseas?
Get. Fucked. Nic.
We should be speaking out against the death penalty everywhere and in all circumstances.
We shouldn’t try to get our citizens “special” treatment, but we should try to get them decent treatment.
Get. Fucked. Nic.
We should be speaking out against the death penalty everywhere and in all circumstances.
We shouldn’t try to get our citizens “special” treatment, but we should try to get them decent treatment.
Not quite the same thing Liam, IMO. The law the gay Australian was charged under was little used and it could be argued that he was unaware that what he was doing was illegal, it being between consenting adults and all that. The Indonesian hard line on drug traffickers is well known and a law that they use all the time.
Not quite the same thing Liam, IMO. The law the gay Australian was charged under was little used and it could be argued that he was unaware that what he was doing was illegal, it being between consenting adults and all that. The Indonesian hard line on drug traffickers is well known and a law that they use all the time.
So? The death penalty is not justified in any circumstance, whether the wrongdoer knew the law in minute detail or otherwise.
So? The death penalty is not justified in any circumstance, whether the wrongdoer knew the law in minute detail or otherwise.
I agree Robert, I should have made myself clear. I was trying to say that the comparision between the cases was a bit stretched. The homosexuality law in the Fiji case hadn’t been used since 1976? I think, whereas most people would know about Indonesia’s stance on drug trafficking. I don’t agree with the death penalty, although personally I wouldn’t want to spend the rest of my life in an Indonesian prison either. I guess the best way is don’t do it in the first place, which doesn’t help those poor sods.
I agree Robert, I should have made myself clear. I was trying to say that the comparision between the cases was a bit stretched. The homosexuality law in the Fiji case hadn’t been used since 1976? I think, whereas most people would know about Indonesia’s stance on drug trafficking. I don’t agree with the death penalty, although personally I wouldn’t want to spend the rest of my life in an Indonesian prison either. I guess the best way is don’t do it in the first place, which doesn’t help those poor sods.
I didn’t think that ignorance of the law was ever an excuse. But then, I’m no lawyer.
Nic, I’ve no sympathy either for the boys shipping heroin, or for Corby. It’s just that irrespective of what Indonesian law is, or what their habits are, there’s no crime they could have committed which would convince me they should be shot.
Remember also that until relatively recently Indonesia was in the habit of jailing its Communists and trade unionists.
I didn’t think that ignorance of the law was ever an excuse. But then, I’m no lawyer.
Nic, I’ve no sympathy either for the boys shipping heroin, or for Corby. It’s just that irrespective of what Indonesian law is, or what their habits are, there’s no crime they could have committed which would convince me they should be shot.
Remember also that until relatively recently Indonesia was in the habit of jailing its Communists and trade unionists.
Yeah, but either our sovereignty extends into other countries or it doesn’t. That is, either Australians have to live by the justice system of another country or they don’t.
If Australia can appeal against other country’s laws it should appeal every single instance when an Australian commits an offence overseas – otherwise the principle is flawed. In which case the Australian government should help the 9 in Bali as it has Corby.
Yeah, but either our sovereignty extends into other countries or it doesn’t. That is, either Australians have to live by the justice system of another country or they don’t.
If Australia can appeal against other country’s laws it should appeal every single instance when an Australian commits an offence overseas – otherwise the principle is flawed. In which case the Australian government should help the 9 in Bali as it has Corby.
Yes. Australia should ensure that every citizen, at home or abroad, is given a fair trial, including by ensuring they have access to appropriate legal assistance.
Furthermore, Australia should lobby to have the death penalty commuted to jail time in every case.
Finally, in circumstances where foreign jails do not meet acceptable minimum standards, we should also seek to allow our citizens to serve their sentences in Australia.
Yes. Australia should ensure that every citizen, at home or abroad, is given a fair trial, including by ensuring they have access to appropriate legal assistance.
Furthermore, Australia should lobby to have the death penalty commuted to jail time in every case.
Finally, in circumstances where foreign jails do not meet acceptable minimum standards, we should also seek to allow our citizens to serve their sentences in Australia.
Good luck with that Robert. The last time it worked, gunboats were required to enforce the rights of citizens from more “enlightened” countries.
Good luck with that Robert. The last time it worked, gunboats were required to enforce the rights of citizens from more “enlightened” countries.
Puh-lease. It happens all the time. For example, our embassy might ensure that our citizens have access to lawyers. We regularly seek the death penalty to be commuted, and Australians convicted overseas are often sent to serve their time in Australian prisons. Unfortunately, our government is not as forthright on the death penalty as it should be.
Puh-lease. It happens all the time. For example, our embassy might ensure that our citizens have access to lawyers. We regularly seek the death penalty to be commuted, and Australians convicted overseas are often sent to serve their time in Australian prisons. Unfortunately, our government is not as forthright on the death penalty as it should be.
Robert,
Embassies are very good at the basics of providing legal assistance. This by no means ensures a “fair” trial. As for the death penalty, you might find it’s not as unpopular with the Australian electorate as you seem to assume. It’s consequently not a political priority. Again, I’d reinforce the point that other countries don’t react well to suggestions that our citizens should get special treatment. And, yes, you are asking for special treatment.
Robert,
Embassies are very good at the basics of providing legal assistance. This by no means ensures a “fair” trial. As for the death penalty, you might find it’s not as unpopular with the Australian electorate as you seem to assume. It’s consequently not a political priority. Again, I’d reinforce the point that other countries don’t react well to suggestions that our citizens should get special treatment. And, yes, you are asking for special treatment.
Sorry to gang up on you Robert,
But what happens when people from overseas come here and commit crimes that aren’t illegal in their country?
Sorry to gang up on you Robert,
But what happens when people from overseas come here and commit crimes that aren’t illegal in their country?
Actually, I’m not asking for special treatment. I don’t think Indonesians convicted in Indonesia should be executed, either, but (apart from encouraging Indonesia to dump that penalty) it’s beyond Australia’s remit to lobby on behalf of individual Indonesians.
I’m not so deluded that I think access to legal assistance necessarily leads to a fair trial, but I certainly hope our embassies point out any irregularities and seek to have them rectified, and to prevent them occurring in the future. Is that too much to ask?
You might believe that the justice systems of certain developing nations should go uncriticised, but I don’t go in for that cultural relativism guff.
And while I’m sure the death penalty is popular with a large segment of the electorate, I also think they’re wrong.
Actually, I’m not asking for special treatment. I don’t think Indonesians convicted in Indonesia should be executed, either, but (apart from encouraging Indonesia to dump that penalty) it’s beyond Australia’s remit to lobby on behalf of individual Indonesians.
I’m not so deluded that I think access to legal assistance necessarily leads to a fair trial, but I certainly hope our embassies point out any irregularities and seek to have them rectified, and to prevent them occurring in the future. Is that too much to ask?
You might believe that the justice systems of certain developing nations should go uncriticised, but I don’t go in for that cultural relativism guff.
And while I’m sure the death penalty is popular with a large segment of the electorate, I also think they’re wrong.
It’s not about whether the crime was illegal in our country or theirs. I’m talking about the legal process, and access to justice. Besides, trafficking heroin is illegal in Australia, too.
And I’m talking about diplomatic pressure, not, as Fyodor suggested, military intervention.
It’s not about whether the crime was illegal in our country or theirs. I’m talking about the legal process, and access to justice. Besides, trafficking heroin is illegal in Australia, too.
And I’m talking about diplomatic pressure, not, as Fyodor suggested, military intervention.
To clarify, if a group of Indonesians were arrested in Australia and faced the death penalty, I would support Indonesia’s attempts to secure lawyers and have their sentences commuted.
To clarify, if a group of Indonesians were arrested in Australia and faced the death penalty, I would support Indonesia’s attempts to secure lawyers and have their sentences commuted.
I?Äôm talking about diplomatic pressure, not, as Fyodor suggested, military intervention.
War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.
Do you think the government of Burkina Faso could influence the trial of one of its citizens held in Australia? Such things are only for the powerful.
By the way, during the gang rape trials in Sydney a couple of years ago, one of the Lebanese defendants sought acquital on the grounds that he didn’t know rape was illegal in Australia. Should the Lebanese government have tried to bail him out?
I?Äôm talking about diplomatic pressure, not, as Fyodor suggested, military intervention.
War is the continuation of diplomacy by other means.
Do you think the government of Burkina Faso could influence the trial of one of its citizens held in Australia? Such things are only for the powerful.
By the way, during the gang rape trials in Sydney a couple of years ago, one of the Lebanese defendants sought acquital on the grounds that he didn’t know rape was illegal in Australia. Should the Lebanese government have tried to bail him out?
No, because as was stated above, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But if he was denied access to a lawyer or facing the death penalty, they should make representations on his behalf.
Sure, the powerful are going to be more successful in their lobbying efforts, and that’s a good argument for sound multilateral forums, but I’m not sure how it changes the underlying principle.
No, because as was stated above, ignorance of the law is no excuse. But if he was denied access to a lawyer or facing the death penalty, they should make representations on his behalf.
Sure, the powerful are going to be more successful in their lobbying efforts, and that’s a good argument for sound multilateral forums, but I’m not sure how it changes the underlying principle.
Fyodor says: ‘…other countries don?Äôt react well to suggestions that our citizens should get special treatment.’
So the intervention needes to be balanced against other diplomatic objectives. But that’s not a reason not to intervene ever. If you’d been convicetd in Taliban Afghanistan of looking at a woman and they wanted to stone you to death, you wouldn’t mind a bit of lobbying by the Australian Government on your behalf. You oppose lobbying in the Bali case because you happen to dispapprove of the crimes these people are accused of. Not because you oppose lobbying in principle.
On a another issue, I’m sick of hearing whether or not people feel sorry for Corby, the Bali Nine or whomever. Whether one personally feels sympathy for someone in trouble is a very individual thing. The stand one takes on a question of justice should be based on consistent principles – whatever those principles might be – rather than gut feelings about the individuals involved.
Fyodor says: ‘…other countries don?Äôt react well to suggestions that our citizens should get special treatment.’
So the intervention needes to be balanced against other diplomatic objectives. But that’s not a reason not to intervene ever. If you’d been convicetd in Taliban Afghanistan of looking at a woman and they wanted to stone you to death, you wouldn’t mind a bit of lobbying by the Australian Government on your behalf. You oppose lobbying in the Bali case because you happen to dispapprove of the crimes these people are accused of. Not because you oppose lobbying in principle.
On a another issue, I’m sick of hearing whether or not people feel sorry for Corby, the Bali Nine or whomever. Whether one personally feels sympathy for someone in trouble is a very individual thing. The stand one takes on a question of justice should be based on consistent principles – whatever those principles might be – rather than gut feelings about the individuals involved.
Hear, hear!
Hear, hear!
“I don?Äôt recall you having the same argument about the Fijian judge who sentenced that gay Australian to prison, Nic. Should Australians have to put up with homophobic law overseas?”
In my post on the subject I crearly stated that this was indeed my position there also, I copped quite a bit for that too. My position is quite clear – no matter what the crime or what the punishment or what the circumstances are, we should not interfering in the judicial affairs of another country. Providing legal assistance is fair enough, lobbying a government to give our citizens special treatment is not.
“We should be speaking out against the death penalty everywhere and in all circumstances.”
What gives us that right? Its another country, you know you are going to get the death penalty if you go there and do something, so you dont do it when you are there or you just dont visit. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Your tone is also quite unnecessary.
“We shouldn?Äôt try to get our citizens “special” treatment, but we should try to get them decent treatment.”
Decent in who’s opinion? Its their country, they decide.
“I don?Äôt recall you having the same argument about the Fijian judge who sentenced that gay Australian to prison, Nic. Should Australians have to put up with homophobic law overseas?”
In my post on the subject I crearly stated that this was indeed my position there also, I copped quite a bit for that too. My position is quite clear – no matter what the crime or what the punishment or what the circumstances are, we should not interfering in the judicial affairs of another country. Providing legal assistance is fair enough, lobbying a government to give our citizens special treatment is not.
“We should be speaking out against the death penalty everywhere and in all circumstances.”
What gives us that right? Its another country, you know you are going to get the death penalty if you go there and do something, so you dont do it when you are there or you just dont visit. Why do I have to keep repeating myself? Your tone is also quite unnecessary.
“We shouldn?Äôt try to get our citizens “special” treatment, but we should try to get them decent treatment.”
Decent in who’s opinion? Its their country, they decide.
Robert, I’m not opposed to the Australian government exerting pressure on foreign governments in the protection of our citizens. On the contrary, I’m all for it. However, there comes a point where they tell us to fuck off. Then you decide how important principles are to you. Personally, I’m not necessarily opposed to gunboat diplomacy, but I suspect you’re less keen.
Robert, I’m not opposed to the Australian government exerting pressure on foreign governments in the protection of our citizens. On the contrary, I’m all for it. However, there comes a point where they tell us to fuck off. Then you decide how important principles are to you. Personally, I’m not necessarily opposed to gunboat diplomacy, but I suspect you’re less keen.
BTW, EP, von Clausewitz said “politics”, not “diplomacy”. You’re obviously still getting used to your realist hat, you tired old hippy.
Diplomacy is the art of saying “good dog”, while looking for a big stick.
BTW, EP, von Clausewitz said “politics”, not “diplomacy”. You’re obviously still getting used to your realist hat, you tired old hippy.
Diplomacy is the art of saying “good dog”, while looking for a big stick.
Remember also that until relatively recently Indonesia was in the habit of jailing its Communists and trade unionists.
Not to mention, Liam, the massacre of about a million Communists and fellow travellers (with intelligence assistance from the CIA) just after Suharto took power. It actually fits the definition of genocide.
As to the death penalty, my basic position is total agreement with Rob. Under no circumstances should a person be condemned to death. The Australian government should be utterly consistent in opposing it and seeking to prevent its visitation on Australian citizens.
That was always Australia’s position in the past, though there was some wobbling (including by Mark Latham in a typically disgracefully populist way) after the Bali bombing.
The death penalty is unconscionable as a matter of principle.
I know this is a rehash of a debate on another thread but the point of liberal democracy is that some issues are not decided democratically – relating to minority rights and human rights. You could probably get a majority right now on capital punishment under some circumstances. That doesn’t mean we should implement it or condone it.
As to the fairness of the trial, I noted in the post the key difference that there is effectively no presumption of innocence in Indonesian criminal justice (nor is there in European, which is worth remembering with regard to Signor Negri as well). We ought not to dictate to a sovereign country what practices they should adopt in their justice system, but we should assist our citizens, and do the best we can to ensure that the process is transparent and free from the taint of corruption.
Remember also that until relatively recently Indonesia was in the habit of jailing its Communists and trade unionists.
Not to mention, Liam, the massacre of about a million Communists and fellow travellers (with intelligence assistance from the CIA) just after Suharto took power. It actually fits the definition of genocide.
As to the death penalty, my basic position is total agreement with Rob. Under no circumstances should a person be condemned to death. The Australian government should be utterly consistent in opposing it and seeking to prevent its visitation on Australian citizens.
That was always Australia’s position in the past, though there was some wobbling (including by Mark Latham in a typically disgracefully populist way) after the Bali bombing.
The death penalty is unconscionable as a matter of principle.
I know this is a rehash of a debate on another thread but the point of liberal democracy is that some issues are not decided democratically – relating to minority rights and human rights. You could probably get a majority right now on capital punishment under some circumstances. That doesn’t mean we should implement it or condone it.
As to the fairness of the trial, I noted in the post the key difference that there is effectively no presumption of innocence in Indonesian criminal justice (nor is there in European, which is worth remembering with regard to Signor Negri as well). We ought not to dictate to a sovereign country what practices they should adopt in their justice system, but we should assist our citizens, and do the best we can to ensure that the process is transparent and free from the taint of corruption.
Incidentally, on Suharto’s communist massacre, two points:
(a) just as in the Middle East, the “free world” reaps what it has sowed. The removal of the only secular opposition to Suharto cleared the field for Islamists to mobilise opposition. Hence the problem we now have. Menzies, of course, supported Suharto – as disgracefully, did Gough Whitlam when yet another massacre took place in East Timor.
(b) I don’t hear the Rafes and RWDBs of the world taking historic responsibility for the murderous crimes of the “free world” American aligned Suharto in the way that they demand the “Left” apologise for Stalin or whoever.
Incidentally, on Suharto’s communist massacre, two points:
(a) just as in the Middle East, the “free world” reaps what it has sowed. The removal of the only secular opposition to Suharto cleared the field for Islamists to mobilise opposition. Hence the problem we now have. Menzies, of course, supported Suharto – as disgracefully, did Gough Whitlam when yet another massacre took place in East Timor.
(b) I don’t hear the Rafes and RWDBs of the world taking historic responsibility for the murderous crimes of the “free world” American aligned Suharto in the way that they demand the “Left” apologise for Stalin or whoever.
Given the turn comments have taken, it’s worth drawing attention to Andrew Bartlett’s post on the death penalty.
Given the turn comments have taken, it’s worth drawing attention to Andrew Bartlett’s post on the death penalty.
If Corby is going to get life in prison, you can only imagine what will happen to the Bali Nine. How much were the Australian police involved in the apprehension of the Bali Nine I wonder? Australia should be pushing for a trial for these people under Australian law, which will at least give them a whiff of justice. I don’t feel sorry for these essentially self confessed drug traffickers, but they at least deserve a fair trial without the possibility of a death sentence.
If Corby is going to get life in prison, you can only imagine what will happen to the Bali Nine. How much were the Australian police involved in the apprehension of the Bali Nine I wonder? Australia should be pushing for a trial for these people under Australian law, which will at least give them a whiff of justice. I don’t feel sorry for these essentially self confessed drug traffickers, but they at least deserve a fair trial without the possibility of a death sentence.
What gives us that right?
The fact that the death penalty is wrong.
Your relativist “well, its their country, their decide” attitude is total bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
I note that you write a lot about American politics — it’s their country, why don’t you butt out? You also wrote about the Pope — you’re not Catholic, butt out.
“National sovereignty” stands in the way of human rights. Should we stand back and watch what’s happening in Darfur? No fucking way.
I’m sorry if you don’t like my tone, but you’re talking about people’s lives here, and dismissing them because it’s somebody’s right to kill them?
What gives us that right?
The fact that the death penalty is wrong.
Your relativist “well, its their country, their decide” attitude is total bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.
I note that you write a lot about American politics — it’s their country, why don’t you butt out? You also wrote about the Pope — you’re not Catholic, butt out.
“National sovereignty” stands in the way of human rights. Should we stand back and watch what’s happening in Darfur? No fucking way.
I’m sorry if you don’t like my tone, but you’re talking about people’s lives here, and dismissing them because it’s somebody’s right to kill them?
My understanding is that the Australian Federal Police tipped the Indonesian Police off so the arrests occurred there and not here.
That is, they colluded in getting those people arrested in a jurisdiction in which death was a likely outcome. They could have been arrested and tried here – the place in which the actual trafficking does the damage, and where our police could have perhaps followed the deal back to the evil toads who run the trade.
It seems to me that our mainstream media should go after this notion. If it is true, it is surely unacceptable. People should lose their jobs.
My understanding is that the Australian Federal Police tipped the Indonesian Police off so the arrests occurred there and not here.
That is, they colluded in getting those people arrested in a jurisdiction in which death was a likely outcome. They could have been arrested and tried here – the place in which the actual trafficking does the damage, and where our police could have perhaps followed the deal back to the evil toads who run the trade.
It seems to me that our mainstream media should go after this notion. If it is true, it is surely unacceptable. People should lose their jobs.
“The Indonesian punishment is death, they are guilty, so death they shall recieve and I have no qualms with that.”
And if one of ‘em was yer younger brother, you’d still be as principled?
“The Indonesian punishment is death, they are guilty, so death they shall recieve and I have no qualms with that.”
And if one of ‘em was yer younger brother, you’d still be as principled?
We’ve all read Nic’s views on the Bible – perhaps he came across “an eye for an eye” somewhere?
We’ve all read Nic’s views on the Bible – perhaps he came across “an eye for an eye” somewhere?
I’m glad you all agree that we were right to intervene in Iraq and topple Saddam’s murderous regime.
I’m glad you all agree that we were right to intervene in Iraq and topple Saddam’s murderous regime.
EP, I think the situation in Darfur is far more pressing, but we can’t intervene because we’re stuck wasting time and resources in Iraq.
David, I don’t think you can blame the AFP on this one. My understanding is that they tipped off the Indonesian authorities a couple of months ago because they needed help with surveillance; apparently no arrests would have been made at all if they couldn’t track the drugs through Indonesia.
Maybe they should have let it slide, because the death penalty is involved. But the area is certainly too grey to call for sackings. It would have been a tough call and I certainly don’t know what I would have done in that situation, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty.
EP, I think the situation in Darfur is far more pressing, but we can’t intervene because we’re stuck wasting time and resources in Iraq.
David, I don’t think you can blame the AFP on this one. My understanding is that they tipped off the Indonesian authorities a couple of months ago because they needed help with surveillance; apparently no arrests would have been made at all if they couldn’t track the drugs through Indonesia.
Maybe they should have let it slide, because the death penalty is involved. But the area is certainly too grey to call for sackings. It would have been a tough call and I certainly don’t know what I would have done in that situation, despite my strong opposition to the death penalty.
I’m with Rob on Darfur.
Contrary to previous reports, the Presiding Judge has stated the Court is not bound by the prosecutorial recommendation and Corby may still be sentenced to death if convicted.
I’m with Rob on Darfur.
Contrary to previous reports, the Presiding Judge has stated the Court is not bound by the prosecutorial recommendation and Corby may still be sentenced to death if convicted.
I could point out that a number of other countries are standing around doing nothing much at the moment, since they didn’t go into Iraq. But I’ll leave that cause I don’t want to drag the thread off-topic.
This is an interesting issue because it forces us to confront the circumstances and degrees of meddling in other countries’ affairs (and theirs in ours) that is justifiable.
It seems there’s one school of thought that holds national sovereignty above other causes, and another that regards certain issues as transcending that sovereignty. I also note the absence of the UN from the discussion — perhaps a reflection of its true usefulness.
I could point out that a number of other countries are standing around doing nothing much at the moment, since they didn’t go into Iraq. But I’ll leave that cause I don’t want to drag the thread off-topic.
This is an interesting issue because it forces us to confront the circumstances and degrees of meddling in other countries’ affairs (and theirs in ours) that is justifiable.
It seems there’s one school of thought that holds national sovereignty above other causes, and another that regards certain issues as transcending that sovereignty. I also note the absence of the UN from the discussion — perhaps a reflection of its true usefulness.
The absence of the UN (assuming you’ve returned to talking about Indonesia, EP, and are not still discussing Darfur) would be because it has no mandate to intervene in the normal functioning of a sovereign state’s judicial system.
According to your logic, you should support the death penalty as being potentially a subject for intervention, since I assume you see “toppling Saddam’s murderous regime” as an objective transcending national sovereignty (which was not Howard’s opinion at the time of course).
But to talk in terms of intervention in a formal sense is to confuse the issue and mistake the proper terms of the argument. What we’re talking about is representations, not intervention.
The absence of the UN (assuming you’ve returned to talking about Indonesia, EP, and are not still discussing Darfur) would be because it has no mandate to intervene in the normal functioning of a sovereign state’s judicial system.
According to your logic, you should support the death penalty as being potentially a subject for intervention, since I assume you see “toppling Saddam’s murderous regime” as an objective transcending national sovereignty (which was not Howard’s opinion at the time of course).
But to talk in terms of intervention in a formal sense is to confuse the issue and mistake the proper terms of the argument. What we’re talking about is representations, not intervention.
The point about advocating consistently against the death penalty is that it should be clearly opposed in all circumstances, for all people, regardless of their nationality – otherwise it does look like a request for special treatment just for Australians. That was why saying the equivalent of “it’s OK with me, none of our business” about the Bali bombers being sentenced to death was so wrong (if you say you oppose the death penalty as the Australian Government officially does and has signed international agreements which reinforce that). Naturally any Government should pay particular attention to a fair go and clemency for its own citizens, as that is a key responsibility, but not to the extent of implicitly suggesting that the lives of others don’t matter or are of lesser value.
Also, expressing opposition (or any sort of opinion) about a practice in another country is not the same as intervening in another country’s jurisdiction.
If someone actually supports the death penalty, well … I disagree a lot but that’s a separate argument. I’m talking about consistency in supporting a principle, even when (especially when) its unpopular.
The point about advocating consistently against the death penalty is that it should be clearly opposed in all circumstances, for all people, regardless of their nationality – otherwise it does look like a request for special treatment just for Australians. That was why saying the equivalent of “it’s OK with me, none of our business” about the Bali bombers being sentenced to death was so wrong (if you say you oppose the death penalty as the Australian Government officially does and has signed international agreements which reinforce that). Naturally any Government should pay particular attention to a fair go and clemency for its own citizens, as that is a key responsibility, but not to the extent of implicitly suggesting that the lives of others don’t matter or are of lesser value.
Also, expressing opposition (or any sort of opinion) about a practice in another country is not the same as intervening in another country’s jurisdiction.
If someone actually supports the death penalty, well … I disagree a lot but that’s a separate argument. I’m talking about consistency in supporting a principle, even when (especially when) its unpopular.
God, some of you people…
Meh, deal with this tomorrow night, I need sleep.
God, some of you people…
Meh, deal with this tomorrow night, I need sleep.
I don’t think asking for our citzens not to face the death penalty is interfering in Indonesian affairs. After all they are free to ignore us if they want to. As Andrew stated earlier, the Australian government is against the death penalty, so it should come as no surprise that we ask for our citzens not to face it.
I don’t think asking for our citzens not to face the death penalty is interfering in Indonesian affairs. After all they are free to ignore us if they want to. As Andrew stated earlier, the Australian government is against the death penalty, so it should come as no surprise that we ask for our citzens not to face it.
“The fact that the death penalty is wrong.
Your relativist “well, its their country, their decide” attitude is total bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.”
Thats what your opinion is, dictated by your ideology. Theirs is different. Yes, Im going to be relativist and say that its THEM who get to choose what is “right” or “wrong”. There is nothing to say that they arent right and you arent wrong (NOT going to go there), its all ideology, etc. Because it is their country, they get to call the shots.
“I note that you write a lot about American politics ?Äî it?Äôs their country, why don?Äôt you butt out? You also wrote about the Pope ?Äî you?Äôre not Catholic, butt out.”
Oh please.
1. There are 1 billion Catholics on earth, and the teachings of the Pope therefore affect me, and they affect people I know, and they affect the way my religion is viewed even though Im not Catholic.
2. American politics affects Australian politics. My blog is called The 52nd State for a reason.
3. Theres a BIG difference between stating my opinion on things and the government of a country lobbying to give their citizens special treatment. The comparison just isnt there to be made.
“you?Äôre talking about people?Äôs lives here, and dismissing them because it?Äôs somebody?Äôs right to kill them?”
Strawman.
“We?Äôve all read Nic?Äôs views on the Bible – perhaps he came across “an eye for an eye” somewhere?”
Jewish Law. And that was very cheap, not amused.
“And if one of ‘em was yer younger brother, you?Äôd still be as principled?”
Yes. Hell, as I said in my post, if it was me Id want the government to be consistent. In fact I would refuse any attempts at lobbying from the government.
“And if one of ‘em was yer younger brother, you?Äôd still be as principled?”
I was hoping to not be the person to have to say that, cheers EP.
“It seems to me that our mainstream media should go after this notion. If it is true, it is surely unacceptable. People should lose their jobs.”
David thats ridiculous. Losing their jobs for doing their jobs? Theres a concept for you. It go results, 9 arrests were made, people were saved from injecting heroin on Australian streets.
By all means people, complain about capital punishment in general and seek to remove it if you wish, but having goverments interfere with each other is, IMO, not on under any circumstances like this.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because all I can do is keep stating my position while the rest of you attack it because your ideology differs, and no one will budge an inch. Im also going to be offline for the weekend so I wont be making any further replies until at leats monday night, by which time Id assume this would be well and truly over.
“The fact that the death penalty is wrong.
Your relativist “well, its their country, their decide” attitude is total bullshit. Complete and utter bullshit.”
Thats what your opinion is, dictated by your ideology. Theirs is different. Yes, Im going to be relativist and say that its THEM who get to choose what is “right” or “wrong”. There is nothing to say that they arent right and you arent wrong (NOT going to go there), its all ideology, etc. Because it is their country, they get to call the shots.
“I note that you write a lot about American politics ?Äî it?Äôs their country, why don?Äôt you butt out? You also wrote about the Pope ?Äî you?Äôre not Catholic, butt out.”
Oh please.
1. There are 1 billion Catholics on earth, and the teachings of the Pope therefore affect me, and they affect people I know, and they affect the way my religion is viewed even though Im not Catholic.
2. American politics affects Australian politics. My blog is called The 52nd State for a reason.
3. Theres a BIG difference between stating my opinion on things and the government of a country lobbying to give their citizens special treatment. The comparison just isnt there to be made.
“you?Äôre talking about people?Äôs lives here, and dismissing them because it?Äôs somebody?Äôs right to kill them?”
Strawman.
“We?Äôve all read Nic?Äôs views on the Bible – perhaps he came across “an eye for an eye” somewhere?”
Jewish Law. And that was very cheap, not amused.
“And if one of ‘em was yer younger brother, you?Äôd still be as principled?”
Yes. Hell, as I said in my post, if it was me Id want the government to be consistent. In fact I would refuse any attempts at lobbying from the government.
“And if one of ‘em was yer younger brother, you?Äôd still be as principled?”
I was hoping to not be the person to have to say that, cheers EP.
“It seems to me that our mainstream media should go after this notion. If it is true, it is surely unacceptable. People should lose their jobs.”
David thats ridiculous. Losing their jobs for doing their jobs? Theres a concept for you. It go results, 9 arrests were made, people were saved from injecting heroin on Australian streets.
By all means people, complain about capital punishment in general and seek to remove it if you wish, but having goverments interfere with each other is, IMO, not on under any circumstances like this.
We are going to have to agree to disagree because all I can do is keep stating my position while the rest of you attack it because your ideology differs, and no one will budge an inch. Im also going to be offline for the weekend so I wont be making any further replies until at leats monday night, by which time Id assume this would be well and truly over.
Obviously the wrong quote from EP. I mean to quote his ironic “I?Äôm glad you all agree that we were right to intervene in Iraq and topple Saddam?Äôs murderous regime.” statement.
Obviously the wrong quote from EP. I mean to quote his ironic “I?Äôm glad you all agree that we were right to intervene in Iraq and topple Saddam?Äôs murderous regime.” statement.
Calling something “ideology” does not mean you can dismiss it out of hand. We have expressed reasons for our opinions, but you haven’t explained yours.
Do you support the death penalty in Australia? Why/why not?
Calling something “ideology” does not mean you can dismiss it out of hand. We have expressed reasons for our opinions, but you haven’t explained yours.
Do you support the death penalty in Australia? Why/why not?
Nic ‘Sharia’ White would hold a gun in the line.
Nic ‘Sharia’ White would hold a gun in the line.