9 australians in bali drug bust.. (4 Viewers)

[Generator]

I can't see where i've got a conflict of position.

It wasn't so much a conflict that I was trying to expose, rather that was just what I thought would be a relevant example. However, how do you know that most people did not want the Iraqi government to remain? You are forever dismissive of large scale anti-war protests here as a source of justification, afterall. Also, the idea that a rogue nation-state is one without the support of the majority does seem quite strange.

Just to be sure, I'm not trying to say that his government was popular or that it should not have been dealt with in some way.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Well i think the iraq war was borderline, and when i say the majority i mean the majority of iraqi's. As for how I know the majority of iraqi's didn't want saddam? Well I don't know, I'd just say if the majority of iraqi's DID want saddam, the US would be in a MUCH worse situation than they are today.

 

[tattoodguy]

muh - yeah everyone should be treated equally - but as we have a strong relationshp with indonesia they could allow our citizens to be returned here.
i still think the afp should have let them come here.

yes it was nice to let a crim go to bali for the court case --- but they didnt believe him anyways --- that could of just beeen for show.

how about the guard saying corby admitted the drugs were hers? etc ---- they say corby confessed.
also she had the drugs in her bag...................isnt that enufff evidence?

in australia this would be an open and shut case.

so i dont know why u are up in arms about this particular girl ---- all the time ppple in australia are convicted based on alot lesss evidence ---- so why dont we loook at cases in australia more closely?


is there some questions about civil liberties in relation to the bali 9 ? im not sure of what happened but i heard something about some invasion of civil liberties? but it may just be gosssip.

is there any questions about ummmmmm police not gettting warrants or operating outside the juristiction etc? is anything like that an issue? does anyone know.

in relation to this case -----------------------------------

you have a right i think under the law to ......commmit lessss severe crimes --- like if ur threatened to be killled ---- you have a right to smuggle durgs etc? anyone know if thats true? i think i read something like that in legal studies.

and in relation to those who didnt get caught with drugs on them etc ------
dont u think since they didnt get caught in the act ----------- that there is a huge potential for them to be dobbed in after police scare the others involved etc.

I concerned that some of the bali 9 could be innocent ---- and based on the word of drug smugglers --- innnocent parties could be caught up in this.

anyone share my concerns?

 

[tattoodguy]

what i dont get is..................

who said, that its wrong to have a government no body wants?
I dont like our government......neither do alot of other people.

Its not up to us --- to kick foreign governments out of power, because we dont liek how they treat their citizens.

In asutralian however, ssince its our country i think we have a right tooo---- protest and try and change the government here.

but the iraq war was based on wmd and so the US would have more secured positions in the middle east to excert more control.

 

[lourai*87]

tattoodguy --- you seem kinda confused with your viewpoint.

i think the legal system shoudl always favor the defendent

But what if the defendant happens to be a guilty murderer or something? If the defendant is innocent, sure, but there is always the element of uncertainty. in the case of the bali 9, i dont think people here are saying they should get off and not be punished if guilty (which they are to some point seeing they had the drugs on them)...i think its more being said that the way in which they are punished is extremely harsh and pointless (<- my opinion)

and when u want to talk about justice that should work both ways ---- not just about being punished............but when ur victimised you should have the right to bring things back to equilibrium by committing a crime with immunity.

one cliché -- two wrongs dont make a right. If every person who was ever victimised decided they would go out and commit an offence with a free pass...can you imagine the society?

 

[walrusbear]

why is it people here seem to completely ignore the sanctity of a life when it comes to 'issues'?
there's all this talk of respecting cultural sensitivity - but it seems a little hypocritical of you all. i get accused of assuming superior moral ground, but in supporting your argument you have a condescending, paternalistic conception of Indonesia.
'oh we should let them kill our citizens because it's such a big part of their culture'
that's such a white imperialist attempt at being politically correct. you think Indonesia will be culturally bereft if they can't kill criminals! how fucking condescending to think that trying to save the lives of our citizens will somehow cause a big disruption to indo 'culture'! that totally paints a picture of indonesia as 'savages'.

oh yeah, and Not-That-Bright, what a pleasant display of double standards when it comes to imposing cultures.
your stubbornly retarded support of the iraq invasion was the finest piece of doublethink i saw all last year

 

[jennylim]

why is it people here seem to completely ignore the sanctity of a life when it comes to 'issues'?
there's all this talk of respecting cultural sensitivity - but it seems a little hypocritical of you all. i get accused of assuming superior moral ground, but in supporting your argument you have a condescending, paternalistic conception of Indonesia.
'oh we should let them kill our citizens because it's such a big part of their culture'
that's such a white imperialist attempt at being politically correct. you think Indonesia will be culturally bereft if they can't kill criminals! how fucking condescending to think that trying to save the lives of our citizens will somehow cause a big disruption to indo 'culture'! that totally paints a picture of indonesia as 'savages'.

i don't think the issue is cultural sensitivity as much as respecting a country's sovereignty - ie, their right to govern their country as they wish. since the people elected their government and their laws, obviously that's what they want. if we impose our laws on our citizens IN indonesia, we are creating a state of extraterritoriality which is really a very big insult. saying "i don't trust you or your legal system, and i think mine is much better." whether or not we think that's true is a moot point. in japan during the early stages of the meiji restoration, extraterritoriality was in place - something that the japanese found terribly insulting.

that said...i feel quite sorry for the bali 9. they're obviously guilty, but i don't think they're the evil masterminds...just a group of really, really dumb hard-up aussies. they deserve to be punished - but only to a certain extent. ah well.

 

[Danoz The Great]

i feel quite sorry for the bali 9. they're obviously guilty, but i don't think they're the evil masterminds...just a group of really, really dumb hard-up aussies. they deserve to be punished - but only to a certain extent. ah well.

Well said.

If they were Innocent, surely they would know the consequences?
If they were Guilty, surely they would know the consequences?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

why is it people here seem to completely ignore the sanctity of a life when it comes to 'issues'?
there's all this talk of respecting cultural sensitivity - but it seems a little hypocritical of you all. i get accused of assuming superior moral ground, but in supporting your argument you have a condescending, paternalistic conception of Indonesia.
'oh we should let them kill our citizens because it's such a big part of their culture'
that's such a white imperialist attempt at being politically correct. you think Indonesia will be culturally bereft if they can't kill criminals! how fucking condescending to think that trying to save the lives of our citizens will somehow cause a big disruption to indo 'culture'! that totally paints a picture of indonesia as 'savages'.

oh yeah, and Not-That-Bright, what a pleasant display of double standards when it comes to imposing cultures.
your stubbornly retarded support of the iraq invasion was the finest piece of doublethink i saw all last year

oh yeah, and Not-That-Bright, what a pleasant display of double standards when it comes to imposing cultures.
your stubbornly retarded support of the iraq invasion was the finest piece of doublethink i saw all last year

You just don't get it do you? Step beyond your simplistic world view for a second, ok? In iraq - we had a situation where (in my opinion) the people DIDN'T LIKE saddam hussein, therefor i think it was right to have external intevention, also, people were worried that saddam hussein could adversely affect nations beyond his border in the future.
He was not merely standing up for a doctrine which the large majority of his country supports (i.e. that women should be forced to wear headscarfs).

Now in indonesia, i'm going to take a bit of an educated guess, and say that a LARGE majority of indonesians support the idea of killing foreigners if they're found guilty of smuggling drugs, thus OUR country SHOULD NOT get involved...

If however, the majority of indonesians were calling for the death penalty to be abolished, and nothing was happening, they weren't budging against heavy public criticism of the government on this issue - THEN - we should force them to stop the killings. Of course, it probably wouldn't come to this in any country where they have FAIR democratic elections.

that's such a white imperialist attempt at being politically correct. you think Indonesia will be culturally bereft if they can't kill criminals! how fucking condescending to think that trying to save the lives of our citizens will somehow cause a big disruption to indo 'culture'! that totally paints a picture of indonesia as 'savages'.

How typical for an idiot to come out and call someone names i.e. "RACIST, WHITE IMPERIALIST" when you don't have the balls to argue with someone with a bit of class.
It's not that they'll be losing their 'culture', it's that we need to respect the views of other nations You view them as savages because they kill people, you're the one who feels "OMG THEY'RE STUPID AND WRONG I'M RIGHT!".
Let me simplify this for you;
- YOU think they're savages.
- YOU can't accept the beliefs of other cultures.
- YOU feel you're superior to these people.

 

[mahuligan]

How typical for an idiot to come out and call someone names i.e. "RACIST, WHITE IMPERIALIST" when you don't have the balls to argue with someone with a bit of class.
It's not that they'll be losing their 'culture', it's that we need to respect the views of other nations You view them as savages because they kill people, you're the one who feels "OMG THEY'RE STUPID AND WRONG I'M RIGHT!".
Let me simplify this for you;
- YOU think they're savages.
- YOU can't accept the beliefs of other cultures.
- YOU feel you're superior to these people.

i don't think the issue is cultural sensitivity as much as respecting a country's sovereignty - ie, their right to govern their country as they wish. since the people elected their government and their laws, obviously that's what they want. if we impose our laws on our citizens IN indonesia, we are creating a state of extraterritoriality which is really a very big insult. saying "i don't trust you or your legal system, and i think mine is much better." whether or not we think that's true is a moot point. in japan during the early stages of the meiji restoration, extraterritoriality was in place - something that the japanese found terribly insulting.

two excellent points :uhhuh:

 

[Generator]

A few things to consider...

1. The nation-state is only a relatively recent development, and it is far from being a concrete framework for international relations (EU, anyone?).
2. Human rights are universal and the need to ensure that they are universally adhered leads towards a path of action fraught with difficulties, but you cannot just ignore an unjust practice because you must 'respect' cultural sensitivities.
3. That Not-That-Bright quote didn't prove a great deal (other than that he himself cannot argue with much class).

 

[mahuligan]

2. Human rights are universal and the need to ensure that they are universally adhered leads towards a path of action fraught with difficulties, but you cannot just ignore an unjust practice because you must 'respect' cultural sensitivities.

what place do we have to call it an unjust practice? in indonesia they see it as perfectly just punishment, and it was in indonesia that the crimes were committed, not australia.

 

[Generator]

what place do we have to call it an unjust practice? in indonesia they see it as perfectly just punishment, and it was in indonesia that the crimes were committed, not australia.

The idea that human rights are universal more than justifies my position. Are you trying to say that anything goes if something happens to take place in another country, even if it is in no way an acceptable practice (see 'human rights are universal')?

 

[mahuligan]

and generator, with that not to bright quote..the excellent point i was referring to was the part that said 'we need to respect the views of other nations'

 

[Not-That-Bright]

A few things to consider...

1. The nation-state is only a relatively recent development, and it is far from being a concrete framework for international relations (EU, anyone?).
2. Human rights are universal and the need to ensure that they are universally adhered leads towards a path of action fraught with difficulties, but you cannot just ignore an unjust practice because you must 'respect' cultural sensitivities.
3. That Not-That-Bright quote didn't prove a great deal (other than that he himself cannot argue with much class).

1) I know you like to believe that we aren't currently living in a world of nations, but alas for you, we are. True the EU is a slightly differing situation, however in the context that we are speaking of "australia/indonesia" this simply doesn't apply.
2) HAhahahahhaa! Ok, generator.. tell me what some 'universal' human rights are, and how you've come to decide that these rights are objectively perfect These "universal" human rights which you refer to are nothing more than documents written up by people, that will more than likely change throughout the course of history. You speak of them as if they are enlightened "truths" of which we all must accept.
3) Interesting that you choose not to engage with me on my thoughts. How exactly would you address someone calling you a "white imperialist" ?

 

[Generator]

1) I know you like to believe that we aren't currently living in a world of nations, but alas for you, we are.
2) HAhahahahhaa! Ok, generator.. tell me what some 'universal' human rights are, and how you've come to decide that these rights are objectively perfect These "universal" human rights which you refer to are nothing more than documents written up by people, that will more than likely change throughout the course of history. You speak of them as if they are enlightened "truths" of which we all must accept.
3) Interesting that you choose not to engage with me on my thoughts.

1. Nice assumption. I was merely pointing out that some things are not constant (as you yourself did with the following point).
2. So are we to just ignore any sense of common decency as determined by a credible international organisation (the UN) merely because times change, no matter what that means for those living (and possibly suffering) today?
3. Is there any real point in engaging with someone who apparently feels the need to dismiss someone for being compassionate and believing that common standards/rights should exist for all, no matter their situation?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

1. ok
2. yes, because it is the (imo) best model. Of course however, I don't see where my sort of 'rule' for when intervention is necessary exactly differs from that of the UN's.
The UN only ever seems to intervene when an oppressive government has been doing things the majority of their nations population disagree's with, or when a nation does something that adversely affects another nation.
3.I have my own belief of what common standards/rights are, other people have their own beliefs... For instance, the majority of australians probably feel the death penalty is wrong. However, the majority of indonesians probably feel it is a just thing to do...
Who am I to say i'm objectively right?

And sure, perhaps in the future we may need an international standard for ALL human beings, based not on how much "power" your country has, and not based on the number of "votes" but based on some sort of international referendum (which of course... could also be tainted).

I feel for now the simplest way is to maintain the concept of a 'nation'.

 

[tattoodguy]

but your saying we can take out saddam becase the majority of his citizens didnt support him?

thats not a reason to start a war.

u guys got angry about the riots etc in sydney ---- if you dont think people have a right to attack authority ----------- but u suppport completely over throwing a government?

i dont get it.


as for lunais? comment about if all the victims committed crimes -- yeah society would be a bit of a messsss.... but.............that would be justice.

justice isnt easy. i support victims being given leniency when they commmit crimes.

also everyone stop saying that these ppple are alll guilty --- 3 or 4 of them got busted with drugs strapped to them.......... --- 5 or 6 of the others........didnt have anything on them.........however in a room some fo them were in...a smalll quantity of drugs were found,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

the drugs found could have beeen from the original 3 or 4. ........ i dont think its fair to group the bali 9 together.............when there isnt alot of evidence against a few of them. ---- dont u think?

maybe some went there and changed their mind or just went for a holiday. i just think its dangerous to group the 9 together..when there isnt evidence against all of them.

also if the mules were threatened? does this effect anyones opinion in how they should be punished?

 

[jennylim]

too many numbers! i can't cope.

but about the "human rights are universal" thing - under the UN charter, the death penalty is allowed for. i mean indonesia's a part of it. america wasn't because they liked executing the juveniles, but everyone else was. if it's about what's fair/just and so on, it's up to each sovereign nation to decide.

 

[walrusbear]

How typical for an idiot to come out and call someone names i.e. "RACIST, WHITE IMPERIALIST" when you don't have the balls to argue with someone with a bit of class.
It's not that they'll be losing their 'culture', it's that we need to respect the views of other nations You view them as savages because they kill people, you're the one who feels "OMG THEY'RE STUPID AND WRONG I'M RIGHT!".
Let me simplify this for you;
- YOU think they're savages.
- YOU can't accept the beliefs of other cultures.
- YOU feel you're superior to these people.

your incoherent and emotive arguement here completely misses my point
the only issue i have here is with deep respect for human life. it's like i'm being shat on for trying to defend this.
your argument is centred around conflating 'indo culture' with their drug laws. something that is implicitly condescending. i'm merely arguing that our government should have done its best to ensure that the smugglers were arrested and tried under Australian law, because i'm pretty sure most of us agree that the Indonesian drug laws severely impede on our own values.
i'm suddenly culturally insensitive because i disagree with a culture's capital punishment laws?
cut the hyperbole moron

oh yeah, and before you criticise the class of my arguments, try and STOP WRITING WITH CAPITALS TRYING TO VISUALLY CREATE A RETARDED VERSION OF MY VOICE HAHAHAHAHAHA. it makes you look even more stupid

LOLZOMGZ