Bali nine duo executed by firing squad

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: hellobruce

Yes but you said for years and that is just not true .

You really do have a reading comprehension problem....

Chan's statement before the Denpasar District Court in his final plea of innocence, 13 February 2006.

See the year? 2006

Chan, interviewed in 2010 a

See the year? 2010 So for years and years (4) Chan was lying.... You are unable to accept the truth!

a reply to: hellobruce

www.sbs.com.au...

Open , go to transcript , click show all . This was 2010 . Dateline interview .

Chan, interviewed in 2010 a

Really you come up with that .

originally posted by: hutch622
This was 2010 . Dateline interview .

What are you babbling about? I said 2010, so they have been lying for years - you seem unable to accept the truth about these 2 lying convicted admitted drug dealers - why is that?

a reply to: hellobruce

What part of an interview in 2010 arent you getting . You did not read the link , did you . do i have to post the entire interview and highlight it for you . They admitted guilt in the interview . It was in TWO THOUSAND AND TEN .

You have yet to back up a claim with a credible source . I am done with your distortions . Bye .

originally posted by: hutch622
They admitted guilt in the interview . It was in TWO THOUSAND AND TEN .

You are very confused, that is what I posted! -

See the year? 2010 So for years and years (4) they were lying

Passions run high on this one but, the solution is absolutely clear world-wide:

Stop making taking drugs - which is a personal choice - illegal. Legalise it and collect the huge amount of taxes from it.

Then you can not only afford to rehabilitate those in dire need. Put in a programme to aid the children of addicts whilst their parents recover and get their families back. T|ake away the stigma of a drug condition because many with one never work again.

That action alone would save a fortune on sickeness, reliability for work and create a physically and mentally heathier society.

It would free up the jails and more importantly leave the police free to tackle crime fully resourced.

To deny humanities history of taking drugs since beyond the stone age is ridiculous, its part and parcel of every culture on the planet. People need to think about who does this anti-drug legislation benefits - only the ever expanding prison services with their political benefit of bulk voting in certain areas especially in the USA and of course all the other vested interest corporations here.

What we do today concerning drugs doesn't work, hasn't worked and never will work. People trafficking and extensions of the drug trade that make people vulnerable to crime, were we to handle illegal drug taking would be easily capable of being handled by a less pressed police force - most of whom are not above taking drugs themselves as indeed are many of the lawyers who skunk around the courts giggling into their sleeves at their own double standards.

You won't get rid of the death penalty until countries like the USA decide to stop it and lead against the death penalty. It does seem inhuman today and will always have the tag in people's minds that perhaps an innocent person, like Hanratty in the UK was hung mistakenly. We could even have resources in the police to concentrate on catching paedophiles - think about that very topical in the UK at present.

originally posted by: Kryties
From: smh.com.au...

Chan and Sukumaran execution 'illegal', but Indonesia ignores Australia again

The execution of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran was illegal under international law according to high-level advice provided to Julie Bishop, but Australia's request that Indonesia submit to the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the matter was ignored.

The Australian ambassador asked Indonesia's consent on March 10 to explore the issue before the international court, but the Foreign Minister revealed yesterday she still has not had a reply.

The Australian government had strong legal advice by ANU academic Don Rothwell and Sydney barrister Chris Ward that the men's execution was illegal under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia signed in 2006.

Under that treaty, the death sentence can only be imposed for "the most serious crimes".

"Drug trafficking does not constitute such a crime when it involves no prima facie harm or violence to another person," according to legal safeguards added to the treaty in 1984, according to the advice commissioned for Chan and Sukumaran's legal team and provided to Ms Bishop.

"We concede that one of the possible consequences of the trafficking of drugs is self-abuse of the drug, possibly resulting in death. However, this is an event which is considerably removed from the actual trafficking of the drugs and ultimately involves an act of self-choice by the drug user."

The fact that Chan and Sukumaran were conspiring to take the drugs from Thailand to Australia, with only a stop-over in Bali, meant the possibility of harm to Indonesians from their crime was remote. For these reasons, their crime could not be considered in the "most serious" category.

The legal advice also suggested that aspects of Indonesia's behaviour in the lead-up to the executions represented "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" - another violation of the covenant.

Professor Rothwell and Dr Ward pointed out that execution by way of firing squad, the men's treatment over 10 years in jail, the Attorney-General H.M. Prasetyo's decision to execute prisoners in large groups "described by Indonesia as batches, in the presence of each other and before a massed group of executioners", and repeated comments in the lead-up that the deaths were "imminent", "will not be delayed", may be "this week", and that "on-going legal processes would not be respected" were all cruel and inhuman.

Ms Bishop was handed the advice earlier this year, but she had to wait until all Indonesia's domestic legal processes were complete before seeking Indonesia's consent to argue the case before the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the United Nations.

While Indonesia is a member of the court, it does not recognise its "compulsory jurisdiction", meaning it must agree to the case being heard there.

Ms Bishop confirmed on Friday that ambassador Paul Grigson had requested of the Indonesian foreign ministry six weeks ago that it submit to that jurisdiction. However, like many other requests made by Australia in the lead up to the executions, it was met with silence.

"Indonesia has not responded to our request.," Ms Bishop said on Friday.

However, Professor Rothwell told Fairfax Media Australia could continue to push Indonesia on the case. A successful judgement would create a precedent that could prevent Australia's neighbour from carrying out the death penalty on drug traffickers in future.

More than 50 people are set to be executed for drug crimes in Indonesia coming months after president Joko Widodo cracked down.

Ms Bishop would not comment on whether she would press ahead with the request for a court hearing, saying only: "Indonesian consent would be required and that has not been forthcoming".

To play devil's advocate; I think this is a fair summation and worthy of a read by members engaged in this forum
for no other reason than to hear and weigh up all sides of the story.

Yes there is emotion in this debate. It is not a backslapping win type of thread either. So winning is not nor should not
be an alluded to trophy interpretation of superiority. ( you know what I mean ) .

From: news.com.au...

Bali Nine lawyer Muhammad Rifan to be questioned by Indonesian police over bribery claims

FORMER Bali Nine lawyer Muhammad Rifan expects to be questioned by Indonesian police over bribery claims he made against the judges who sent his clients to their deaths.

On Monday Mr Rifan went public with explosive allegations against the presiding judges, accusing them of asking for a 1 billion rupiah bribe for a sentence of less than 20 years for convicted drug smugglers Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.

He claims their agreement fell through after senior legal and government officials in Jakarta ordered the judge to impose the death penalty.

Mr Rifan was the pair’s original trial lawyer, who represented them when they were sentenced to death in the Denpasar District Court in 2006.

Mr Rifan’s original allegation was contained in a letter which Chan and Sukumaran’s new lawyers sent to Indonesia’s Judicial Commission in February, calling for an investigation.

“Muhammad Rifan said that the judges were pressured from certain parties to give the death sentence, and the judges had also conveyed to Muhammad Rifan that they were willing to give a lighter sentence than death sentence to his client if they were given some money,” the letter from the men’s lawyers said.

The letter named the six judges involved in the two cases. A panel of three judges in the Denpasar District Court heard each case.

The letter alleged that the judges violated the judicial code of conduct.

One of the judges, Roro Suroywati, previously told News Corp Australia that she never wanted to give Sukumaran the death penalty but was over ruled by the other two judges on the case.

Mr Rifan told News Corp Australia that, at the time his team was seeking a lighter sentence, there was no money to give the judges.

He said that his team had sought a sentence of 20 years.

Mr Rifan said it was habit, if they requested a lighter term, to provide something to the judges but they had not reached the point of discussing how much.

“So we asked for a lighter sentence, at least 20 years prison term. It is our habit, if we want to request something, we will provide,” Mr Rifan said.

“The problem, at that time, there is no fund that we can give to them. That’s the problem. There is no money that we can give to them.,” he said.

Mr Rifan said that Chan and Sukumaran had been advised to answer “don’t know” to questions from the judges at the trials — a strategy which is not helpful in an Indonesian court where co-operation and admissions of guilt count for a great deal in mitigation.

Mr Rifan said at the time that the two Sydney men were to get a life sentence for their crime but there had been “intervention” and instead they were given a death penalty.

A day after Mr Rifan’s claims were aired, Indonesia said they had completed an investigation into the claims, despite not interviewing any witnesses.

The news of Mr Rifan’s arrest comes as it was revealed high-level advice provided to Australian Foreign Minister Julie Bishop deemed the executions were illegal under international law.

Fairfax reports the Australian government had legal advice by ANU academic Don Rothwell and Sydney barrister Chris Ward that the men’s executions were illegal under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia signed in 2006.

Under that treaty, the death sentence can only be imposed for “the most serious crimes”.

But Australia’s request that Indonesia submit to the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the matter was ignored.

The Australian ambassador asked Indonesia’s consent on March 10 to explore the issue before the international court, but the Foreign Minister revealed yesterday she still has not had a reply.

The legal advice also suggested that aspects of Indonesia’s behaviour in the lead-up to the executions represented “cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment” - another violation of the covenant.

The West Australian also revealed that the Indonesian President’s chief political rival Prabowo Subianto twice privately assured Joko Widodo there would be no political consequences if Chan, Sukumaran and eight others on death row were reprieved.

It is understood that Mr Prabowo penned a letter to Mr Joko last weekend in which he said that if the President were to “postpone the executions indefinitely”, he would come out in support of the decision.

Interesting to note that Subianto also wrote to Widodo asking that the executions be stopped, at least someone in the Indonesian Government seems to have a soul.

Ah! Souls !

a reply to: Shiloh7


Oh yes lets by all means legalize extremely addictive drugs.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Shiloh7

Oh yes lets by all means legalize extremely addictive drugs.

This is the only off-topic post I will make, but this needs replying to.

You have to admit prohibition and the War on Drugs has failed don't you? Anyone with 2 eyes in their head can see it is an abject failure and that a new approach needs to be taken.

If we didn't have a War on Drugs, for instance, Chan and Sukumaran would never have made the trip to Thailand to smuggle drugs to Australia through Bali as the drugs would have been available in Australia in licensed premises for addicts and overseen by medical professionals. There would be no need to smuggle drugs for the lure of money, no need to arrest drug smugglers and therefore no breaking of international law by executing them.

originally posted by: Kryties
and therefore no breaking of international law by executing them.

Funny how all the previous people executed for drug smuggling all over the world did not break "international law", but somehow executing these 2 scumbags does!

They smuggled drugs where the penalty for that was death, they ignored that but of course we cannot blame them, it must be someone else's fault!

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: Kryties
and therefore no breaking of international law by executing them.

Funny how all the previous people executed for drug smuggling all over the world did not break "international law", but somehow executing these 2 scumbags rehabilitated people does!

Fixed it for you.

Nobody said anything of the sort, it's just this particular case has brought it into the spotlight.

I see, however, you are still grasping at straws, like that donkey trying to get the carrot just out of it's reach....

They smuggled drugs where the penalty for that was death, they ignored that but of course we cannot blame them, it must be someone else's fault!

Again, nobody said anything of the sort. International law quite clearly states that executions are not for drug smugglers. It's quite simple really, no matter how much you whinge and gnash your teeth.

originally posted by: Kryties
you are still grasping at straws,

I am not the one clutching at straws, 2 scumbags were executed, only a few bleeding hearts care about them.

International law quite clearly states that executions are not for drug smugglers

It does not actually, just look at all the other executed for drug dealing around the world. It is up to individual nations to decide who they execute.

no matter how much you whinge and gnash your teeth.

You are the one doing that, you are upset 2 scumbag drug dealers were executed! The rest of Australia has already moved on, the rest of the world never even cared!

originally posted by: hellobruce

I am not the one clutching at straws, 2 scumbags rehabilitated people were executed, only a few bleeding hearts care about them.

If by a few you mean millions of people including international condemnation, and if by "bleeding hearts" you mean people who stand up for what is right and just then yeah.

It does not actually, just look at all the other executed for drug dealing around the world. It is up to individual nations to decide who they execute.

Most of those nations didn't sign the ICCPR:

From: smh.com.au...

that the men's execution was illegal under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia signed in 2006.

You are the one doing that, you are upset 2 scumbag drug dealers rehabilitated people were executed!

Yes, you're damn right I am pissed that two people who had shown extraordinary change over 10 years were still executed without both their clemency applications properly looked at and in clear contravention of international law.

The rest of Australia has already moved on, the rest of the world never even cared!

Wrong and wrong. Now you are literally making things up to suit your argument. Poor form.

originally posted by: Kryties
Yes, you're damn right I am pissed that two people who had shown extraordinary change over 10 years were still executed without both their clemency applications properly looked at and in clear contravention of international law.

Still wrong, their clemency did not have to be looked at - how about you show the Indonesian law where it states it must be looked at.... and it does NOT contravene "International law"

you are literally making things up to suit your argument.

Actually, that is what you are doing. However the world is a better place now these 2 scumbag drug dealers have been executed.

originally posted by: hellobruce

Still wrong, their clemency did not have to be looked at - how about you show the Indonesian law where it states it must be looked at....

Actually I have been the one asking YOU to show your evidence for days now, and you have deftly avoided doing so by attempting to twist my words and steer the conversation away from the subject of you providing proof of your claims.

and it does NOT contravene "International law"

The clemency application not being considered properly has nothing to do with international law, I never said it did - please stop twisting my words. THE EXECUTION ITSELF is what contravenes international law - but you already knew this and have attempted, once again, to deflect the topic of conversation.

Actually, that is what you are doing. However the world is a better poorer and more barbaric place now these 2 scumbag drug dealers rehabilitated people have been executed.

Fixed it for you.

originally posted by: Kryties
Actually I have been the one asking YOU to show your evidence for days now,

How can I show evidence of a non existent law? You are the one claiming the President had to look at them, so it is up to you to back your silly claim up - of course you know you are unable to, so you are just deflecting!

THE EXECUTION ITSELF is what contravenes international law -

No it does not. Indonesian law is what counts. The law they were executed under, making the world a better place, a fact that seems to have upset you.

originally posted by: hellobruce


How can I show evidence of a non existent law? You are the one claiming the President had to look at them, so it is up to you to back your silly claim up - of course you know you are unable to, so you are just deflecting!

I have already provided a mountain of evidence covering all of my arguments, and all you have done in response is ignored it or twisted it to suit your barbaric world view. Yet when I have repeatedly called for YOU to provide evidence for your claims such as evidence that the death penalty works you deflect, twist my words and troll harder to avoid having to provide that evidence. Poor form.

SHOW YOUR EVIDENCE. I have been asking this for days.

No it does not. Indonesian law is what counts.

In clear contravention of international law to which Indonesia is a signatory of. Why do you keep denying this clear and proven fact as if somehow you'll change a FACT to suit your delusion?