The author accuses Indonesian judges of subverting their own justice system in "revenge" for the perceived insult of Australian officials following Australian law and then proceeds to blame it all on amorphous 'civil libertarians'. I'm unsure which is the more shocking conclusion:
That this law professor has no qualms with a justice system - any justice system - being so openly corrupted for political ends;
That this law professor is so happy to have Australia's justice system blackmailed by foreign powers;
Or that this law professor - after describing the dealth penalties as the result of upraised middle fingers to the Indonesians - offers his own by openly insulting Indonesian judges.

Where to begin.

Although I don't like lattes and live in regional Australia, apparently because I'm concerned about human rights, I am therefore out of touch with the wishes of the common Australian, as opposed to, sorry, a former senior lecturer at a Victorian Law School.
If you can think of any description that corresponds more to the 'latte' set, I'd like to hear it.

So McConville is proposing that we shouldn't complain about Indonesian practices, for fear of retribution such as this.

No offence, but the idea that we shouldn't voice concern about an oppressive regime because they might execute some Australians seems a tad spurious to me.
If anything, the notion that the judges in Indonesia are executing these people for revenge against Australian political process simply confirms the view that there are serious issues with Indonesia.
Fair enough, Indonesia is a separate nation and has the right to govern how it will, but guess what... Australia is a separate country too. McConville seems to think we should all shut up about foreign governments if we know what's good for us.

"Now is the opportunity for the civil libertarian movement to be restrained and stopped once and for all."

Good grief. That quote scares the crap out of me, and is basically tantamount to saying that we should never question our government's approach to human rights. Right. Because they've been just so trustworthy so far. Just today, our closest ally, the US has admitted to secret CIA prisons. I take it we shouldn't question that either huh?

I certainly hope this isn't the kind of attitude you've taught your law students. No offence, but this is singlehandedly the most one-sided, nasty article I've read on OnlineOpinion - and there have been some pretty intense contenders.

I'll admit - if the judges decision was based on politics, then it is an interesting, and useful analysis in this regard. But if anything, this means we need to be more devoted to civil liberties.

Even James McConvill, when describing the Bali Nine, can’t bring himself to use the words ‘drug smuggler’ preferring the anodyne description of ‘misguided young Australians.’

Mr McConvill is correct when he suggests that Indonesian courts are free to form their own views just as long as those views are coterminous with the prevailing Indonesian political view. Knowing the machinations and intrigues that form the Indonesian profile should be borne in mind by Australians who visit Indonesia.

Our own lenient court system has not helped the Bali Nine. Handing out community service sentences and minimal prison terms for dealing in drugs inculcates a theme that the risk is worth taking. It’s fine if you get caught in Australia but judging by the collective IQ of the Bali Nine they must have been under the impression that they were on the Gold Coast.

The ‘blood on the hands’ criticism of the Australian Federal Police is, of course, insulting and ridiculous.

However, the death penalty for drug offences is draconian – by Australian standards. In Indonesia, it is not regarded as draconian; Indonesians and their government see the penalty as necessary to combat drug trafficking and the lives of their young citizens. Australians should remember that we are inured to very light sentencing here for even the most heinous crimes, particularly younger people who don’t remember tougher times. Many of us also overlook the fact that Indonesia’s toughness protects Australia, as well.

The ‘soft left’ should mind it’s own business. As the author says, these silly Australians have become extremists, anarchists, who hate authority and side with criminals rather than with victims

At the centre of this matter is the fact that these Australians made a deliberate choice to break Indonesian law, thus risk the death penalty if caught. They were!

Protest about the result is similar to a person who deliberately throws petrol on a lit barbeque,then complains about the explosion and burns he suffers. What does he do? Sue the petrol company?
Take action which shifts blame from his own irresponsibilty?

We owe these stupid youngsters compassion for their ignorance, greed, and resultant effects of their actions, but that is a separate matter from reasoning out the application of the penalty.
That penalty has always been a known quantity.

What should be argued is whether the Indonesian Government is taking its revenge for Australia's acceptance of refugees, a totally different issue from the fact that wrong doing results in bad outcomes.
If these drug smuglers are spared the death penalty, it does not alter the fact that they knew what their risk was and deliberately chose that risk. It's a little like a convicted murderer seeking a lesser penalty "....because I only killed him a bit!"

So let's get this right..

It's wrong for Australia to accept West Papuan refugees (no, not just asylum seekers) and by doing so we "caused" the execution of the Bali Nine?

The Jakarta Lobby is strong in this one....