o sung wu, your comments are obviously deeply personal and very well considered. There are some here who could learn a lot from your example.

Foxy, I think we have to accept that the AFP acted in good faith in choosing to take the action they did, even though in hindsight it seems to have been a poor choice. The only other interpretation is that this was a deliberate ploy to make an example of these people.

If that is the case then there are serious questions that should be asked about the origin of that decision and those questions should be asked very forcefully. If it turns out that such a decision was not made outside the organisation, at Ministerial level, then the probity of the AFP is in doubt.

Whether Chan and Sukumaran are sacrificed to Widodo's ambitions or not, this matter has a long way yet to run.

Foxy the difference would be a kiss and a hug from the law makers here, do we ever hear what happens to all of these people who get caught here, there are many, jails are full so what do we do with them, a drug grower and supplier lived next door some years ago, four years he traded and nothing happened, except his live in partner was so over the moon she lived in cupboards in the house, he would still be in the drug trade, that was his life, he could not be rehabitated, they tried, that is the difference,
Interesting you mention the family could be in trouble, my assumption is they knew what their sons and daughter were up to, but wait, the dollars will soon flow with interviews, etc, think of the wealth the Corby family have now accumulated
They were caught in the right country, they knew their fate if caught, Abbott & Co keep out of it, get on with running Australia and not Indonesia, they are drug traffickers

Hi there CRAIG MINNS...

Thank you for your words of understanding, I very much appreciate it, much more then many will realise. Concerning the actions of the AFP in this matter, it's my understanding a co-operative strategy works, with all Nations with whom we have LO's in our Embassies and High Commissions.

A case of 'you scratch our back, we'll scratch yours' situation, when tracking and interdicting hard drugs through the underworld pipelines of each country. Eventually, when the 'product' has reached it's intended target destination, a decision as to when and how the pinch is to be made is decided. Why it was decided the Indonesian authorities should make their move, I don't know ?

As an insert, it's well known within our immediate region (S.E. Asia), Australia is considered extremely soft when dealing in Drug Trafficking, so much so we've literally 'no face', as opposed to 'losing face' within our zone ? It's a pity really, it's not our police that are 'soft', it's our governments who are at fault.

To O Sung Woo

If you could not "make the shot", you should never have volunteered for sniping, or been accepted as a sniper.

The military of every country have been fully aware that most men can not kill the enemy, for more than 200 years. Some nimrod hunters find that they are even unable to even kill animals, which is a condition known as "buck fever." It takes a certain psychology to make a real soldier who can kill people in large numbers without being overcome with guilt. Elite military forces which are force multipliers, are very disprortionately made up of natural born killers, who are still decent men in civvy street. Perhaps Chris Kylie's father got it right when he told his son that people fell into three categories. Sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. Foxy and Craig Minns are sheep. Ivan Milat, Ted Bundy and those ISIS clowns are wolves. US marines, SAS, paratroopers and Chris Kylie are sheepdogs.

Once again you claim that governments do not have the right to kill criminals. But the paradox is, that you probably agree that governments have the right to tell their armed forces to kill their nations enemies. If my premise is correct about your attitudes, how do you reconcile this apparent contradiction? Please write as much as you can in your reply so that I can analyse your logic.

To Foxy.

The Australian Federal Police probably deliberately tipped of the Indonesian Police because the Feds wanted the drug runners executed. The police see the dead bodies of addicts and people gunned down in drug wars. They see the dead victims of robberies caused by drug addiction. And what is worse, is that they see the children of drug addicted parents and they know what miserable lives those kids lead. The Feds are probably angry that our government is too pansified and sheepish to do what is necessary to protect our people.

Let's face it LEGO, the only "gun" you've ever played with hasn't worked in years.

A bit like those old 3 inchers parked up outside every second RSL: a reminder to future generations of what happens when you let old men with delusions of adequacy get carried away with themselves.

Hi there LEGO...

I don't believe one can theorise about killing, until one is directly involved in it. Myself, I don't believe I'm a sheep, a wolf or a sheepdog. I've had a lot to do with the SASR in the West, and none would attempt to 'label' themselves as anything other than well trained soldiers. Be assured, none of them believe themselves to be any type of 'super soldier' - 'we all bleed when we're cut' a Regimental maxim.

Further to your view, the probable reason why the AFP informed the Indonesians of the unlawful activities of the so called Bali 9, is to see them executed, is an altogether interesting hypothesis indeed ?

Why does our government send troops to kill our enemies, is because they are our enemy. Drug runners, are not the enemy, they are criminals ? There's no contradiction at all. The latter are criminals, and as such they are dealt with pursuant to our Statutes.

If the death penalty was available in our statute, it's possible they would be executed, pursuant to that statute. Thankfully the death penalty no longer exists for any offence under Australian law ?