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....

It's the same crap from the conservatives we've been hearing for 10 years: Vilify the refugees as 'illegal que jumpers' and blame the woes of the world on the 'bleeding heart lefties.'The only difference being he found time to kiss Amanda Vandstones ass in the process.

If the author wants to make a positive contribution to the discussion rather than just criticise and blame others he can advocate drug law reform, a progressive immigration policy, and address the systemic failings of DIMEA, but sadly i suspect this will be far beyond his intellectual capacity.

I think James has lost the plot completely. All judicial systems are controlled by the ruling elite, judges come form the elite law profession and most powerful politicians come form the legal profession.

There in lies the problem. The drug smugglers, were warned they could receive bigger sentences, they also knew if they were caught in Asia they would face death. But they still went ahead and did it. The saddest thing is the parents of these fools are the ones suffering, not the legal profession, nor the lefties or politicians.

All we get is more lies from this brain-dead elitist group who appear incapable of doing anything but bleeding the populace of free justice.

The Bali nine have only themselves to thank for their situation. James is just upset they weren't tried here where his ilk could make heaps of money from it.

The article does make the valid point that loud public criticism of Indonesia is not going to endear Australians with the powers that be and may be detrimental to the appeals of both the Bali Nine and Schapelle Corby for that matter.

Unfortunately, debating issues in a public forum is fundamental to our democracy, and we certainly cannot cease doing so for fear of upsetting a neighbour which is as unfriendly as Indonesia.

Blaming civil libertarians for speaking their minds, however indiscretely, from the point of view of the Bali Nine or Schapelle Corby, is just a cheap shot which distracts us from confronting the real problem - the underlying hostility of Indonesia towards Australians and their government's (including their courts) complete lack of respect for our democratic ideals of free speech and due process.

No wonder Dr McConvill has recently resigned as a senior lecturer of law.

Fancy a lecturer in law continuing to pedal the lie that it is illegal to seek asylum in a foreign country. It never was, and never can be under the UN Refugee Convention to which Australia is a signatory.

Anybody has a right to seek asylum and it's perfectly legal to do so. If they're found to be refugees, we're obliged to offer them protection. If not, they get sent home. What's the problem?

42 of those 43 Papuans were accepted as refugess. Ergo, not illegal. There was no queue. Ergo, no queue jumpers.

I might expect these "illegal queue jumper" lies from Andrew Bolt or Piers Ackerman, but for a senior law lecturer to repeat such falsehoods raises serious questions about his knowledge of the law.

Now I wonder, did Dr McConvill jump, or was he pushed?

The author is a lunatic, mixing-up apples and oranges.

There is simply no connection whatsoever between the Bali Nine drug smugglers and asylum-seeker problem.

Indonesian people demand its government to be tough on drugs, hence our tough drug laws. Currently, there are over 50 people on death row in Indonesia for drug offences. Most of them came from Nigeria and other West African countries. Australia is lucky, only six drug smugglers from this country has been sentenced to death by Indonesian courts, making-up only 10% of our death row for drug offences population.

I think the lesson is clear for Australia: INDONESIA HAS NO TOLERANCE FOR DRUG SMUGGLERS. IF YOU TRY PLAYING WITH DRUGS IN INDONESIA: YOU DIE!

I agree with “Proud to be Indonesian”, the laws of the country we visit will and should apply to us while we are there. I don’t know anything about the drug problem in Indonesia but I do know it is undermining Australian society. A lot of young Australians have become criminals because of drugs. Their health is usually poor and their life expectancy short; most will spend their lives on welfare, they are often psychotic and a burden to anyone near them.

James you've out done yourself, your preselection form is in the mail.

i had no idea coffee could be so dangerous, so i'm renouncing civil liberties and reading peirs from this day forth, certainly don't want any blood on my hands, like in iraq.

Good god - this is one pompous ass - apart from his twisted logic - we know he despises what he calls the soft left and notions of humsn rights - why not just say so?

why bother with this artiface of an arguement wrapped in the misery of the dumb bastards languishing in jail overseas?

- because he, like the other self promoting dip stick who wrote the article immediately following (Mirko "Hang 'em High" Bargaric) just likeS to get his face about.

AND FURTHERMORE ( I like to slip the odd " and furthermore" in every now and again as it goes well with self righteous indignation dont you think?) -- Where does this suited pile of arrogance get the assumption that Indonesion judges struggle to construct a sentence?

If we use this fame junkies logic the next severe sentence delivered to an unsuspepcting Australian will be becuase this jerk slandered the Indonesian judiciary.

Gerard Henderson once lamented that the conservative Right in Australia severely lack people who can intelligently and persuasively put forward a written argument that is galvanising and convincing. Mr McConvill certainly fits the bill for providing readers with an unintelligent, poorly thought out piece of diatribe that verges on the racist. He states, “Many Indonesian judges even have trouble constructing a sentence….” What is this assertion based upon? Is it their addressing of the media in English which for them would be a second language or is it their Indonesian which Mr McConvill refers to? If the latter, does Mr McConvill speak fluent Indonesian to make this assessment? His argument is so weak that it makes the likes of Andrew Bolt and Piers Akerman look like a couple of geniuses. If I had the misfortune to study law under Mr McConvill, I would be making ear-piercing demands for my money back.

Well argued and convincing.

Maybe these junkie retards might have thought about the onerous realities of Indonesion law and its attitude to drugs before they tried to get kilos of death powder into Australia.

Golly gosh, I now understand. It is the 'civil libertarians' (sounds a bit like the 'international liberal conspiracy') that are responsible for the death sentences of the Bali nine because they opposed the Nauru solution. I don't think even Howard's trained apologists would try to make that one fly, although watch this space. It has echoes from another time but I just can't quite place it. Maybe the Inquisition...those dangerous human rights advocates must be burnt as their perfidy knows no bounds and they are disturbing the permanently credulous, and that is unAustralian!

This is unbelievably stupid logic. Firstly, the 'sine qua non' of the Supreme Court death sentences is the AFP dubbing in Australian citizens to Indonesian authorities knowing full well that the Indonesian judicial system is severely flawed and that execution was a likely consequence. The decision to grant asylum to Papuans WAS NOT a 'sine qua non'.

Secondly, we have no way of knowing whether the Supreme Court judges were influenced or indeed were even aware of the Papuan decision - and they almost certainly would have been unaware of the failure of the Migration Act amendment to pass the Australian Parliament. They were far more likely to have been influenced by the political need to be seen to be tough on drugs and to be seen as good Muslims by their peers by executing foreigner drug dealers.

Thirdly, is the author suggesting we refuse asylum to Papuans IN ORDER THAT or IN THE HOPE THAT Australian drug offenders are dealt with more leniently in Indonesia? What kind of administative law or public policy is that?

Did this guy resign from a Victorian law school or was he sacked?

Suggesting the Australian treatment of West Papuans determines how the appeals of convicted drug Peddlers will be treated is infantile in the extreme.

Ignoring that 2 of the drug Peddlers had already been sentenced to death before the West PApuans set sail is a significant ommission.

It ignores that, IMHO, all drug peddlers deserve the death penalty, regardless of where they happen to be caught.

The sooner the Indonesians terminate these scum, the better. Line them up with Amrosi and save assembling a firing squad more than once, they are all killers, either by bombs or the slow death through diminished cognitive ability.

So, it's the 'Civil Libertarians' who are at fault?

I would have thought you'd perhaps blame the Indonesians? I mean, they're the ones you accuse of having a warped judicial system that's swayed by political considerations about refugees.

Yes, I guess we should have thrown away all of our obligations under international law just in case the indonesian politicans put pressure on the courts to impose an unjust penalty.

Honestly, your argument holds about as much water as a thimble with a hole in it.

The values ordinary australians cherish are freedom, liberty and justice. None of these values are upheld by the 'common sense' approach of unjustly turning away genuine refugees, or supporting the death penalty.

And do you realise how ridiculous you are to suggest that people who believe the death penalty is wrong and genuine refugees should be accepted are "extremists in pushing human rights to a community that sensibly prefers the common good." The common good is human rights dummy!

I have corresponded with Scott Rush's family since just before they lost their case against the Australian Federal Police in the Northern Territory court.
Brieftly, the history of the case is that Scott Rush was only 19 but had been using drugs for years . His parents learnt of his plans to go to Bali to traffick heroin. Alarmed and acting responbily (via my perceptors) they sought legal advice. That advice was that the solicitor would contact the AFP and ask them to stop Scott leaving to do his criminal acts. Lee and Christine Rush were told that the Police had been told and agreed to stop Scott.
That did not happen. Rather the AFP tipped off the Indonesian authorites and the rest is history.
The AFP would have been well aware of the penalties for heroin trafficking.

In the last few weeks I've become aware through the media that there is this strange sect - the Civil Libertarians that are exerting a influence in all sorts of ways over Australian Society.

Gerald Henderson for example seems to think that they have infiltrated the Victorian Court of appeals. Gregory Rose in the Canberra Times if I read him right, has Civil Libertarian lawyers taking power from our democratically elected Government for their own foul purposes. Greg Sheridan would have the Civil Libertarian 'crowd' (just one step away from being a rabble) as being completely one-eyed about whichever person who's cause they have taken up and the Melbourne Civil Libertarians bathing 'in the adulation of their media clique'. Well I suppose we all know about people from Melbourne.

Now they are extending their influence overseas and are responsible for the death Sentences handed out in Indonesia. What next? Can we ordinary Australians expect to find ourselves being trailed at public events by members of the Sect seeking to infringe apon us? Or at our private addresses either. Heaven forbid.

Me thinks though in reality that the writers of the Right give the Civil Libertarians credit for far to much influence.

I wrote the following when the 43 West Papuans arrived. I still think it makes sense.

To me, this episode in the ongoing efforts to bring attention to the plight of West Papuans, has probably been orchestrated by unelected individual non West Papuans.
With the potential to drop the whole country into the proverbial bucket of **, I query the rights and responsibilities of these people.
I am with them if they lobby our Government or make it an election issue to confront the Indonesians over their handling of West Papua, but not if they knowingly stir up trouble for the whole nation.
I have no problem with individual activists generally, but when their actions reach a certain level of national importance then I think they must take a different path, the democratic one.

There are so many things wrong with this article. I had to read it a few times to determine whether it was a piece of satire.

James McConvill's comments regarding the judges must be close to being defamatory. His comments on Indonesian Government and judiciary will probably do more damage than latte drinking civil libertarians.

What a narrow minded, cliche driven, piece of hyperbolic drivel. And here I was thinking that this place had some interesting articles.

McConvill is a serial self-promoter, and as we can see from the articles he has written on OLO, something of a provocateur.

His departure from Deakin University School of Law was preceded by his failed tilt at the top job there. He extensively documented the application himself in his now-defunct blog http://www.observationdeck.org/

Fortunately, a couple of his detractors were kind enough to preserve some of the content of his blog, for the purpose of illustrating their comments:

http://larvatusprodeo.net/2006/05/31/its-deakin-cup-time-place-your-bet-folks/

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=945

http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=1054

Since his departure from Deakin, McConvill has had time to concentrate on his “think tank” http://www.corporate-research.net/index.php and to work on his autobiographical entry in the Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_McConvill

McConvill is still young, and you’ve gotta wonder what his mum thinks of all his antics. With up to forty years’ working life ahead of him, I suspect he’s going to have plenty of opportunities to regret the hateful and ill-considered words he’s given us here.

McConvill, Rouge, Leigh and others should learn one thing - when and if they are ever in serious trouble it will be the dreaded civil libertarians who will help them out and defend them and hold their hands.

Hicks, the Bali 9 and others know very well that the government will not.

Guess what the liberty part of libertarian means? It means liberty, freedom. Freedom from false imprisonment, freedom from vilification and freedom from the death penalty.

The attitude of Col Rouge is one I find particularly disturbing - blame the dealers because a dumb "f...k" puts needles in his veins.. yeah that's really smart. Most of the junkies I know would inject anything and not one of them were ever forced to do it.

How dare you day that these young people should be put to death? The AFP were totally out of line and this adds to their dodgy behaviour in foreign countries that we should be looking at.

1. they were using the Indonesia police to set up phoney people smuggling operations, stealing from genuine refugees, having them incarcerated in rat hole Indonesian prisons without charge, putting holes in the bottom of boats and then pleading ignorance to the senate.
2. Allowing citizens like Joseph Thomas to be tortured and incarcerated without lawyers in places like Pakistan.
3. Now turning young people in to the same Indonesian police who put holes in the bottom of refugee boats knowing they could be murdered by the state.

We do not and should not ever accept this type of police force in a democracy so the dreaded Civil libertarians still have work to do.

James, I sincerely suggest that you give up the law as you just don't have a clue.

If Indonesia's Judges are no more than political puppets, then why the hell are Australian authorities putting Australian citizens at their mercy. Surely even the most moronic and criminal amongst us deserve better. I still cannot come to terms with the concept of a country which prohibits the legal execution of its citizens at home yet allows its officials to convey information which could see them executed elsewhere.

Fester - I think you have hit the issue on the head, for me at least. Why isn't this question being asked and discussed more? Instead we have McConvill pointing the finger at civil libertarians. Shouldn't we be questioning instead the decision of the AFP?

James, the only ear-piercing voice around here is yours. It gets shriller as your arguments get more ridiculous.

Aside from there being no evidence that the Indonesian court was responding to the situation with the West Papuans, and aside from the role of the AFP (which you do not mention), there are a few other issues with this post.

“Many Indonesian judges even have trouble constructing a sentence…”.

If you make a derogatory generalisation of this kind, you need familiarity with the Indonesian language and legal system to back it up – perhaps you could post the details of your research.

“Saying to Indonesia that West Papuan asylum seekers faced a real threat of persecution … was a slap in the face to the Indonesian Government …”

No, DIMA was simply applying the Australian migration laws in force at the time. If that upset Indonesia, well, so be it.

The implication of your argument seems to be that, if applying particular Australian laws is going to upset another country, the laws should not be applied – or should be applied differently. Are you seriously suggesting that Australia’s legal system should operate according to the desires of other governments? What about, say, the laws designating certain organisations as terrorist organisations? Designating some of these organisations has upset certain countries in the Middle East. Would you argue that the organisations should therefore not have been designated?

“The Howard Government knew that it would have to act to protect Australia’s interests … and proposed changes to Australia’s Migration Act. The changes were not controversial”.

Get a grip. The Senate Legal and Constitutional Committee - including GOVERNMENT senators - recommended that the proposed changes not proceed at all (http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/legcon_ctte/migration_unauthorised_arrivals/index.htm). Aside from criticising every aspect of the Bill, the Committee pointed out (paras 3.197-3.199) that it was not clear how crucial elements of the new regime would operate.

Of 136 submissions on this “uncontroversial” piece of legislation, 135 were opposed to the Bill. The remaining one was written by DIMA!

to be continued...

continuing the previous post...

“frivolous and vexations appeals that … cost Australians millions of dollars a year”

You can’t reduce rights to a question of cost. But if you want to make financial considerations central to public policy, think about the Senate Committee’s conclusion that the proposed new migration regime would likely be much more costly than the current one (paras 3.74-3.82).

“The civil libertarians have not only become loud and extreme, but now pose a threat to the values that ordinary Australians cherish”.

You persistently set up this distinction between café-dwelling, “well-groomed” elites and “ordinary hard-working Australians”. I don’t know what café you’re going to – Australians of all backgrounds quite enjoy a latte.

On a more serious note (and alarmingly from someone who has been a law academic), you’ve missed the whole point of human rights. The majority of any given society don’t usually need them. Their interests are protected through parliamentary processes. Human rights are for everyone, but primarily they are there to ensure that the marginalised and unpopular – who are ill-served in representative democracies where parliamentarians can score votes by playing to popular prejudice and vilifying them – have basic protections

A serious law an order approach to the drug trade demands that the chains of supply be followed up to the sources. While draconian treatment of low level suppliers and mules might satisfy the less informed members of our community as an appropriate response to drug related harm, it achieves nothing in real terms.

Most of the so-called “Bali 9” are, from what I can tell, low level players. No serious players get caught with the stuff. Part of the problem is that the high profits to be made in the drug trade almost invariably corrupt police and other officials involved in the control of the trade. This has historically been a major problem in all countries including Australia, which, in world terms, is a country relatively free of official corruption. It would defy belief that such corruption is not a major problem in Indonesia.

So was the chain of supply followed up from the Bali 9? Well, yes. See:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/dead-reckoning/2005/08/01/1122748530625.html

I enjoy sitting in cafes but not with ear-piercing people and I do not like lattes. Also I do not regard common good as ugly and common sense as an impossibility. But I do think our methods of dealing with asylum seekers are cruel and immoral.

When I try to untangle the complex web of James McConvill's article I suspect his real agenda is in fact support of our Governments new immigration laws, which I personally disagree with.

He tries to hide his total lack of reasonable argument with insults and stereotyping and the absurdly long bow of forming a connection between the Papuans and the Bali nine, which he does by certain assumptions about the Indonesian justice system.

I will donn a right wing hat (what coffee should I drink when I am wearing it?) and ask why my taxes should have been used to pay for the salary of one who appears to have so few principles and mounts such a disgracefully illogical argument.

Abd by the way Bali is predominently Hindu not Muslim.

Why do civil libertarians defend so vehemently the sentencing on drug smugglers and alleged terrorists, yet cannot raise a whisper when an "australian" Islamic leader threatens our Prime Minister with possible rioting of young muslim,if he says anything they do not like?
When Islamics bombed Bali,9/11,Bali again, we heard nothing from these "freedom lovers"
One can only assume they hold total contempt for Australia and Australian well being and safety. I wonder if any of their children died of drug overdose, if they would still be so reverent of drug dealers and terrorists.

What a load of excrament. Two points

1) The Bali nine knew that there was a chance that their appeals would not be upheld, they took that chance - I doubt that our decision to allow papuan refugees into Australia had any bearing on the case.

2) Why should we allow Indonesia, or any other country, to dictate our immigration policy? We are a soverign nation.

That's the problem with hard right commentators, the harder right they are, the more infantile their arguments - just look at Andrew Bolt and some of our radio shock jocks... and now apparantly, James McConvill.

It is five years and two or three days since we learned that two asylum seekers, who had been sent back to their own countries, had been killed. One at least was killed by the people that he had declared would kill him.

Since then, at least nine others have died because the relevant members of the
Department of Immigration made mistakes, and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal did not pick them up. If James McConvill’s argument is legitimate, he has the blood of eleven people on his hands.

The Department has permitted asylum seekers to be subjected to conditions which have caused the latter to become mentally ill. It has resisted change. It has vigorously resisted efforts to have detainees seen by psychiatrists, even in those cases where it was clear that its own procedures had not been such as to produce a reliable diagnosis. (Is James responsible for the illnesses?)

It has repeatedly used spurious criteria for denying refugees refugee status. It is incompetent, and often immoral to the point where it is tempting to talk of it as evil.

The defeated legislation would have left that Department making the decisions about asylum seekers transported to Nauru, without any appeal to an independent reviewer. Of course it was opposed. I am proud to have done so.

The original argument concerning queues was that people should stay in the country of first refuge until they were selected for immigration by other countries. Given the conditions in refugee camps, it was never a very moral argument.

The defeated legislation was supported by a different notion of queue jumping. It now appeared that refugees should stay in their own country, risking death or torture, and not emigrate to a neighbouring country until invited to do so. This argument made a mockery of the international processes for people seeking asylum. If all countries took the same view, there would be nowhere for asylum seekers to go. We’d be complicit in their deaths.

It is all a big political football.The Federal police thought they could take the heat off themselves and Charpelle Corby by letting the Indonesians spring the trap on the Bali nine.They were the sacrifical lambs for Charpelle to get much lighter sentence or be found innocent because of how poorly the whole enquiry and courtcase was conducted.If Charpelle's dilemma had not reached the media,she could have bought her freedom.That idiot mobile phone sales opportunist from Queensland really got her in a pickle.

Now the Indonesians have got both the lambs and the hapless Charpelle,and they will play it for all it's worth.

Marilyn Shepherd “McConvill, Rouge, Leigh and others should learn one thing blah blah

…Hicks, the Bali 9 and others know very well that the government will not.”

Marilyn, I was taught when a child that doing the wrong thing, peddling drugs, using terrorism as a tool against the country in which I live is not only plain dumb but any limp-wristed wet nurse apologist will be useless in a real fight – they are only out to salve their own guilt or bolster their own ineptitude.

If you, like me, had learnt that choices are made and we are responsible for those choices, then you would not be so arrogant or cavalier as to suggest anything about what I need to learn, instead focusing on the deficiencies of your own “education”.

As for “The attitude of Col Rouge is one I find particularly disturbing”,
I am pleased that something disturbs you Marilyn, shake you out of your idealistic non-accountable twilight zone.

What disturbs me is when people are murdered at the hands of those suffering chronic psychotic episodes
due to extensive drug abuse. I would observe, very few junkies are “born”. Most are created and they are created by exposure to the drugs the Bali 9 would have shipped into Australia. The dealers and the mules, at every point in the chain deserve the death penalty.

“How dare you say that these young people should be put to death”

Not only do I “DARE” and I also DEMAND it – a campaign slogan “hang ‘em high and let them die”

And if they were caught and tried in Australia I would still campaign to have the scum hang, or be shot or maybe, with some sense of irony – simply be given an “O.D.”

Fester “why the hell are Australian authorities putting Australian citizens at their mercy.”

I do not think “Australian Authorities” put anyone at the Indonesians “mercy”.

The Bali 9 Drug peddlers were participating in their own private endeavour and the Indonesian justice system has merely issued the punishment they so richly deserve.

Everytime l hear converstaion about or take the bait on these bali bombing/bali-9/corby episodes l almost always come away with the sense that the most vehement voices tend to be loosley defined as 'anit-indonesia' voices. These folks have a very useful conversational pretext for slagging off the Indonesians. Oddly enuff, some of the most emotional diatribes from people who get 'offended' and dole out the 'how dare you' mock shock come from individuals that, in my own personal experience, have clearly demonstarted histories of anti-asian bias. Its hillarious too, one of these guys l know 'loves asian food' but hates the people (his grand daddy was killed by Japanese in WW2). Sheesh, these types of people, say juxtaposed to serbia and croatia, would be razing the neighbours home their mother's uncle's friend killed his father's aunty's mailman.

Of course, guys like him dole out their veiled hate almost as vociferously as they deny their hate.

"If you cant do the time, then dont do the crime."

As far as I know, Australian citizens cannot be legally executed in Australia. As far as I know, the Australian Government does not approve of the legal execution of citizens of any country, with the exception of John Howard's unfortunate approval of the legal execution of the Bali terrorists. (Unsurprisingly, the learned professor makes no speculation on how these comments may have prejudiced the treatment of the Bali 9.) So it strikes me as inconsistent and disturbs me greatly that a public Australian entity can convey information to a country which could lead to the legal execution of an Australian citizen or citizens. And it is totally farcical that the Executive of Government then appeals for clemency based on what it considers to be a basic human right, that of the right to life. What the AFP did is no less unconscionable than Sir Henry Bolte's role in the legal execution of Robert Ryan. The fact that the AFP have acted legally suggests to me that the law is currently deficient in this respect.

"McConvill, Rouge, Leigh and others should learn one thing - when and if they are ever in serious trouble it will be the dreaded civil libertarians who will help them out and defend them and hold their hands."

I don't know if this is true or not but I suspect that many Australians would suspect that it would only be the case if any of the above had chosen to break the law and ignore the civil liberties of somebody else.

Maybe it's selective reporting but the civil liberty organisations don't have a very high profile in being there to defend and hold the hands of the victims of wrongdoing. They don't have a very high profile in helping those who have not done harm and yet fall victim to an unjust family law system.

There is a legitimate role for civil liberty organisations to fight to ensure those suspected of crimes are treated fairly. This should be part of a role protecting the civil liberties of the innocent rather than ensuring that the guilt don't have to face the consequences of their choices.

Likewise those same organisations should if they want credibility be seen to to be doing something about the liberties of the innocent when those liberties are breached by the government.
- Legal costs for those acquited of charges against them.
- Those who have substantial portions of their lives destroyed through the excesses and biases of the family law system.

R0bert

Mr McConville's comments are frightening to read from someone who has lectured in law.
This is not worthy of further discussion.

The Prime Minister has just confirmed that indeed there is a new threat facing Australian Society. James was just smelling the wind and getting in on the action to alert ordinary Australians. From our Prime Ministers lips today.

"I find it amazing civil libertarians run around and attack me, or (British Prime Minister) Tony Blair or attack the police,".

Move over the terrorists masquerading as asylum seekers (very remiss of ASIO to say that's untrue), the kiddie throwing refugees, Saddam with his weapons of mass destruction, the non-conforming Muslims, there is a new threat in town - the latte drinking Civil Libertarians.

Personally I can't see Julian Burnside 'running around' or savaging anyone. Seems to be more a gentle pained commentary going on from that quarter. Terry O'Gorman too, I wouldn't put down as a attack dog, but he is of Irish extraction and maybe can work up to a good bit of temper so I'll take our Prime Ministers word for it. I mean when has he ever told wobblies about people before?

Anyway the further, painting of the Civil Libertarians as ferals should be worth a giggle in the coming weeks.

But I did forget a peice of advice for Bill Keelty and it might be useful information for James as well if he ever finds himself in a tricky situation.

Say for instance in the future Bill might want to make an informed wearing his independent hat of Police Commissioner. Maybe he might say, 'well yes, Australia's involvement in Iraq has made us more of a target for terrorists'. If Bill then gets a phone call from a highly placed politican's office about the comment which he might see as pressure to retract, if things were looking difficult career wise say if he didn't want to retract or soften his comments - the people to call would be the Civil Libertarians. I'm sure they would take up his case.

In the meantime, I'll try to lose the image of Brian Walters lying in wait outside Kiribilli to inflict mortal wounds on the PM with a devestating legal argument and then finishing him off with the tasty bagel he had been saving for lunch (sacrifices in the public interest must be made) or worse that whippersnapper Cameron Murphy flooring the PM with a rational argument. Where will it end?

I am inclined to the view that the Federal Police should have allowed the mules of the Bali 9 to return to Australia and arrested both them and the recipients of their delivery here. The main crime of the Bali 9 was not against Indonesia, but against the intended destination of the drug shipment, Australia.

I agree with other posters including Col Rouge - the author has failed to support his hypothesis with any evidence that there is a link between the Papuan asylum seeker issue and the fate of the Bali 9. Instead, a long bow has been drawn to knock down a straw man, if I cam mix metaphors in that way.

What interests me is how history is going to regard our current period. I used to look back at McCarthyism and the Cold War and scratch my head, not because I have ever been pro-communist, but because the rhetoric and paranoia coming out (from the west and the Iron Curtain) were beyond absurd. The irony to me in all of this lies in the fact that as a society, these days, we're so bloody uptight about ourselves that people get all worked up just because one group or another dares to have a different opinion. Honestly, if the framework of our society is that fragile that it's going to be brought down by a bunch of so-called latte sipping civil libertarians, then we're already way beyond help. Provided our grand children aren't caught up in similar nonsense of their own, they're going to look back on us and laugh, not because there was or wasn't a threat or a problem, but because of the way we handled it so immaturely. There have been a lot of stupid time periods in history, and this is just going to be one more of them. The grand narrative of our time is the overwhelming sense of idiocy from people who should know better (especially law professors). It does my head in that despite living in an age of unprecedented information and learning, we're actually stumbling over the most entry level concepts we worked out several centuries ago. If the 17th and 18th centuries were known as the Age of Reason, I propose that the 20th and 21st be known as the Age of Buffoonery.

Which is preferable - an instant death by shooting, or a long term in an Indonesian gaol? The latter would be like a living death.