It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: symphonyofblase
a reply to: Kryties
Lol, are you really quoting mass media propaganda to try to bolster your case?
I don't care what the sydney morning herald has to say.
I don't care what tony "broken every election promise" abbott says about them.
Do you realise, that whilst you sit here and hysterically
try to make the rest of us see what it is that only you can see, that Australia is also breaking international law? Our unlawful detainment and torture of asylum seekers in our concentration camps violates almost every single Article in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There are much bigger issues in the world right now,
and Australia is hypocritical for pointing the finger at Indonesia, when we break the same laws. Maybe if you would wake up to these things you wouldn't be sitting there pointing your finger also.
originally posted by: symphonyofblase
a reply to: Kryties
Do you realise, that whilst you sit here and hysterically try to make the rest of us see what it is that only you can see, that Australia is also breaking international law? Our unlawful detainment and torture of asylum seekers in our concentration camps violates almost every single Article in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
There are much bigger issues in the world right now, and Australia is hypocritical for pointing the finger at Indonesia, when we break the same laws.
originally posted by: Pinke
'Bigger things in the world' isn't really an excuse for anything really. I mean let me put it this way, you've 'woken up' to these things and how many of them have you stopped since last Friday? If the answer is more than zero I'll be pretty shocked.
Sorry if I sound mean or callous btw, I just can't word it any better. I fail to see the practical call to action in the point you're making. It just seems like stealth apathy.
originally posted by: symphonyofblase
Neither of these things are going to change anytime soon, and certainly not by creating a thread on ATS about it.
Chan and Sukumaran execution 'illegal', but Indonesia ignores Australia again
The execution of Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran was illegal under international law according to high-level advice provided to Julie Bishop, but Australia's request that Indonesia submit to the judgment of the International Court of Justice on the matter was ignored.
The Australian ambassador asked Indonesia's consent on March 10 to explore the issue before the international court, but the Foreign Minister revealed yesterday she still has not had a reply.
The Australian government had strong legal advice by ANU academic Don Rothwell and Sydney barrister Chris Ward that the men's execution was illegal under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Indonesia signed in 2006.
Under that treaty, the death sentence can only be imposed for "the most serious crimes".
"Drug trafficking does not constitute such a crime when it involves no prima facie harm or violence to another person," according to legal safeguards added to the treaty in 1984, according to the advice commissioned for Chan and Sukumaran's legal team and provided to Ms Bishop.
"We concede that one of the possible consequences of the trafficking of drugs is self-abuse of the drug, possibly resulting in death. However, this is an event which is considerably removed from the actual trafficking of the drugs and ultimately involves an act of self-choice by the drug user."
The fact that Chan and Sukumaran were conspiring to take the drugs from Thailand to Australia, with only a stop-over in Bali, meant the possibility of harm to Indonesians from their crime was remote. For these reasons, their crime could not be considered in the "most serious" category.
The legal advice also suggested that aspects of Indonesia's behaviour in the lead-up to the executions represented "cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment" - another violation of the covenant.
Professor Rothwell and Dr Ward pointed out that execution by way of firing squad, the men's treatment over 10 years in jail, the Attorney-General H.M. Prasetyo's decision to execute prisoners in large groups "described by Indonesia as batches, in the presence of each other and before a massed group of executioners", and repeated comments in the lead-up that the deaths were "imminent", "will not be delayed", may be "this week", and that "on-going legal processes would not be respected" were all cruel and inhuman.
Ms Bishop was handed the advice earlier this year, but she had to wait until all Indonesia's domestic legal processes were complete before seeking Indonesia's consent to argue the case before the International Court of Justice, the judicial arm of the United Nations.
While Indonesia is a member of the court, it does not recognise its "compulsory jurisdiction", meaning it must agree to the case being heard there.
Ms Bishop confirmed on Friday that ambassador Paul Grigson had requested of the Indonesian foreign ministry six weeks ago that it submit to that jurisdiction. However, like many other requests made by Australia in the lead up to the executions, it was met with silence.
"Indonesia has not responded to our request.," Ms Bishop said on Friday.
However, Professor Rothwell told Fairfax Media Australia could continue to push Indonesia on the case. A successful judgment would create a precedent that could prevent Australia's neighbour from carrying out the death penalty on drug traffickers in future.
More than 50 people are set to be executed for drug crimes in Indonesia coming months after president Joko Widodo cracked down.
Ms Bishop would not comment on whether she would press ahead with the request for a court hearing, saying only: "Indonesian consent would be required and that has not been forthcoming".
originally posted by: Jansy
a reply to: Kryties
You accuse everyone who debates your points of being tiresome and repeating the same old tired line...and yet you are engaged in your own frenzied beating of your own dead horse.
Yeah, we get it that you think this was a barbaric, illegal action against these poor, victimized "rehabilitated" men who, just because there was NOTHING ELSE TO DO in an Indonesian prison (unlike American ones where you can get a law degree and/or run a crime cartel out of your cell) except resign yourself to the inevitable and try to put on a good face.
In this particular case, in this particular country, they received "justice." The rules in Indonesia are pretty self-explanatory. If you're caught smuggling drugs, you die.
As a great man once said, "Resenting the law of gravity won’t keep a person from falling if he steps off a cliff." The reality here is there is a law against smuggling drugs in Indonesia, the consequences are the death penalty.
And if MY re-iteration is tiresome, so be it. I'm not sure you're entitled, once you start a thread, to demand people agree with you or stop posting. Your reiterations will only invite the other sides' reiteration.
I think we get that you believe what happened was unjust...it's just as clear that the government of Indonesia believes what they did was just.
And okay, I'm done...because the whole thread (including you) is becoming tiresome.
originally posted by: Jansy
In this particular case, in this particular country, they received "justice." The rules in Indonesia are pretty self-explanatory. If you're caught smuggling drugs, you die.
I think we get that you believe what happened was unjust...it's just as clear that the government of Indonesia believes what they did was just.
Article 10 requires anyone deprived of liberty to be treated with dignity and humanity.[32] This applies not just to prisoners, but also to those detained for immigration purposes or psychiatric care.[33] The right complements the Article 7 prohibition on torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.[33] The article also imposes specific obligations around criminal justice, requiring prisoners in pretrial detention to be separated from convicted prisoners, and children to be separated from adults.[34] It requires prisons to be focused on reform and rehabilitation rather than punishment.[35]
Article 6 of the Covenant recognises the individual's "inherent right to life" and requires it to be protected by law.[18] It is a "supreme right" from which no derogation can be permitted, and must be interpreted widely.[19] It therefore requires parties to take positive measures to reduce infant mortality and increase life expectancy, as well as forbidding arbitrary killings by security forces.[19]
While Article 6 does not prohibit the death penalty, it restricts its application to the "most serious crimes"[20] and forbids it to be used on children and pregnant women[21] or in a manner contrary to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.[22] The UN Human Rights Committee interprets the Article as "strongly suggest[ing] that abolition is desirable",[19] and regards any progress towards abolition of the death penalty as advancing this right.[19] The Second Optional Protocol commits its signatories to the abolition of the death penalty within their borders.
The Indonesian Human Rights Commission has questioned the morality and
professionalism of the Indonesian judicial system, arguing that the pro-death penalty
statements issued by a corrupt judiciary can be very dangerous34. Particularly noteworthy
is the current attitude of many ordinary Indonesians who plead for a more liberal use of
the death penalty in response to endemic corruption and murder throughout the country.
In April 2014, the government paid $1.8m (£1m) to secure the commutation of a death sentence against another Indonesian domestic worker in Saudi Arabia, who had been convicted of the murder of her employer. As in Ms Zainab's case, the woman was said to have acted in self-defence.
originally posted by: hutch622
While Article 6 does not prohibit the death penalty, it restricts its application to the "most serious crimes
According to reports, Australian officials were given strong legal advice by ANU academic Don Rothwell and Sydney barrister Chris Ward the men's execution were illegal under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The treaty, which was signed by Indonesia in 2006, states the death penalty can only be given for 'the most serious crimes'.
Advice provided to Ms Bishop and the Australian government reportedly stated: 'Drug trafficking does not constitute such a crime when it involves no prima facie harm or violence to another person.'
The legal advice also suggested Indonesia's behaviour before the executions represented 'cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment' - another violation of the deal.
originally posted by: hutch622
Now if you can provide a link about their lying it would be much appreciated .
Throughout his trial, Chan remained silent.[34] During his final plea, reading from a two-page statement, Chan commented:[34][35] "I didn't say anything in court because if I did, I'd be lying. The truth is, I know nothing. A lot of lies have been said against me, but the true reality is I'm not what people put me out to be. I've never threatened anybody in my life. The outcome I wish, of course, and my family is that you find that you would release me, for I had nothing to participate in this......Chan's statement before the Denpasar District Court in his final plea of innocence, 13 February 2006.
Chan also defended his refusal to cooperate with authorities during the investigation and his trial - something prosecutors had highlighted in seeking a death sentence.
"I apologise to the Indonesian people, I also apologise to my family and I realise that my actions have brought shame and suffering to my whole family. If I am pardoned..
www.theage.com.au...
However, in his last statement to the court, delivered after the prosecution called its last witness, Sukumaran denied meeting any of the mules. He said he came to Bali alone on holiday and met Nguyen on the plane on the way over. He went out drinking with him, Chen, Norman and Chan while in Bali. He claimed not to know who owned the drug materials and personal property seized at the Melasti Hotel, where he accompanied Nguyen, Chen and Norman while they checked in to their room