It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: camain
a reply to: Kryties
They lived 10 years too long in my opinion. When scum have to be fed, clothed and protected, it takes vital resources that are better allocated elsewhere. It is not the tax payers responsibility to be burdened with these idiots. Further anyone if given enough time will repent, when being punished. There's an old saying. You make your bed, now lie in it. The only issue I have with this, is that it dragged out for 10 years. If they would have put a bullet in them immediately after the trial, this wouldn't be an issue now. I congratulate Indonesia on having the patience and compassion to give these mongrels 10 years longer to live.
his tweeting this is NOT to be taken lightly, it is the first official message from the Govt. about the executions and is indicative of what is to come:
originally posted by: Kryties
Keep salivating at the thought of someone dying why don't you
Lawyers for Rush said his father, Lee, contacted the AFP through a lawyer in early April explaining that he feared his son was travelling to Bali to commit a drug offence.
The application alleges Lee Rush then received assurances from the AFP that they would tell his son he was under surveillance to dissuade him from going through with the crime.
Scott Rush's lawyers said he was never contacted.
Three excuses for the Bali nine death penalty - and why they're all sickeningly wrong
"I'm not in favour of the death penalty, but, you know, I can see why people think they deserve it." So goes the hypocritical sentiment echoing across Australia when conversation turns to Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran.
Somehow it has become fashionable to believe that these two young men, aged 31 and 33, deserve their fate, with a dubious poll even apparently showing the majority of people support their impending murder. All grist to the mill for pundits who have come out to call for their deaths.
When it happens, bullets will rip through their flesh, slashing their blood vessels and causing massive haemorrhages. If they are lucky, it will be quick, this process of bleeding to death.
But perhaps the bullets will miss their vital organs and it will be slow, and painful.
We kill animals this way, too, by letting them bleed out. But at least we give cows the reprieve of stunning them first.
Yet for Chan and Sukumaran, some are willing to throw all morality and good sense on the bonfire of tabloid bloodlust, and replace it with half-thought arguments and self-satisfied justifications.
They tend to go along three lines:
Indonesia has a "right" to enforce its own laws.
Well, yes, it does, but that doesn't mean we should support those laws.
If a law is unjust, why would we agree with its enforcement, particularly when it involves the death penalty?
When women are sentenced to be stoned to death overseas you don't hear people saying "well, she knew that was the law when she had sex, and that country has a right to enforce its laws".
No, we say it's an immoral act - and we applaud people who fight against it. We are shocked by how much the punishment exceeds the "crime", and we are sickened by the brutality of a state that thinks it has the right to take a life, to torture. The vast public outpouring for Australian journalist Peter Greste, convicted for the laughable crime of "spreading false news", shows just how willing we are to reject another country's unjust laws.
Secondly, they say "they were drug dealers, and drugs kill people, too".
Well, I didn't realise we were reverting back to the days of eye-for-an-eye punishments - a concept first introduced in Babylonian times - but if we have, let's not be inconsistent about it.
How about introducing the death penalty for drunk drivers, or tobacco industry executives?
After all, in the latter case we have numerous people who knew, for decades, their product was deadly for one in two of the people who use it (making it even more deadly than heroin).
Some companies profited for years while they hid evidence, lied to the public and influenced governments, and now are continuing their deadly behaviour in developing countries.
Of course, it would be barbaric to see the chief executives of these companies taken to an island off the coast somewhere and shot.
But for some reason we don't think the same thing about Chan and Sukumaran, who have been personally responsible for zero deaths.
Finally, the third argument goes, "Chan and Sukumaran knew what they were getting into, so why should we care about them?"
One former newspaper editor even argued it was wrong for people to be focusing on Chan and Sukumaran when there are so many innocents awaiting the death penalty everywhere. But it's not unusual for Australians - and our media - to care more about what's happening to other Australians abroad, no matter what the issue.
But drug importers are easy targets to criticise in columns. They don't seem like us, these young Australian men, and what they did seems unimaginably stupid. It's easy to make harsh judgements about a decision we would never have made ourselves - even easier to take the moral high ground from a drug-dealer. (All the while conveniently ignoring the fact that there were other people who knew what they were doing, too, namely the Australian Federal Police who let them go to their deaths.)
Perhaps all this is just a way of safely living out our most primitive revenge fantasies?
After all, this way we get to keep our moral high ground about capital punishment, insisting that we are still not in favour of it. But we can't help it if those brutal Indonesians like giving out cruel punishments, so out of "respect" to their culture we'll support them. Well, how about instead we respect them by treating them as our moral equals, who are just as capable of rejecting the death penalty as us?
We should never support the death penalty, which is not a deterrent and only serves to allow governments to enforce a most brutal, unjust, irrational "justice" - generally against those who have the least resources and ability to defend themselves.
When Chan and Sukumaran die I will feel for them. I will think of their grieving families, of their brutal, bloody deaths and just the sickening waste of it all. And I hope those Australians safely on their moral high-ground will pause for just a moment, and think about just what it is they have been advocating for.
originally posted by: thesaneone
a reply to: Kryties
So what do you want us to do about it?
Should I as an outsider have the right to go into your country and try to make them change their laws to suit me?
Get over it and don't visit their country problem solved.
originally posted by: Kryties
Gotta love the barbaric thinking people starring each others posts btw, real classy. Keep salivating at the thought of someone dying why don't you, I'm off to bed.
Trust me mate, this isn't being taken lightly down here by people who matter.