Surviving Bali 9 Members Released & Returned To Australia

[rdhopkins2]

The surviving Bali 9 members have been released from an Indonesian prison and have arrived back on Australian soil.

Two of the Bali 9 met a grim end courtesy of an Indonesian firing squad and another dying of cancer.

I’m guessing this is a deportation and permanent ban from returning to Indonesia but presumably most won’t ever wish to return.

After 20 years imprisoned in Indonesia they’ve done some decent time and I’m certain they all regret their actions.

Here is hoping they can make peace with themselves and can gain meaningful employment and live normal lives.

https://www.news.com.au/national/crime/remaining-members-of-notorious-bali-nine-arrive-in-australia/news-story/5df1ec36f17e8eeeb55a8eceb44f293c

 

[Rob R]

Pretty poor by our government, they got off light in the first place and now we have to pay for their jail time.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Pretty poor by our government, they got off light in the first place and now we have to pay for their jail time.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

Sounds like they are being released into the community so I don't think the government is paying for jail costs.

I don't agree with the govts decision either.

 

[Chicken Treat]

They served 19 years, it's a fair punishment for what they done.

 

[Rob R]

Sounds like they are being released into the community so I don't think the government is paying for jail costs.

I don't agree with the govts decision either.

Your right, at least we won't pay for that- disappointing they got off so light.

Hopefully government does right thing and makes sure they get not one cent from interviews, book deals etc.

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Run n Spread]

Correct decision they've done enough time.
War on drugs is a waste of time anyway. Legalise the lot tax it regulate it and stop handing over control to drug cartels.
Locking up a bunch of mules makes no difference.

 

[Rob R]

Correct decision they've done enough time.
War on drugs is a waste of time anyway. Legalise the lot tax it regulate it and stop handing over control to drug cartels.
Locking up a bunch of mules makes no difference.

Shooting them as should have been done would be a better way of stopping repeat. Can't really call it a war on drugs as we never fought it harshly enough (combined with more money for education and rehabilitation for Australian citizen users)

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Run n Spread]

Shooting them as should have been done would be a better way of stopping repeat. Can't really call it a war on drugs as we never fought it harshly enough (combined with more money for education and rehabilitation for Australian citizen users)

On SM-A136B using BigFooty.com mobile app

You been to SE Asia and/or any country with the death penalty. You can not walk down the street in some of those places without been offered drugs of all kinds.
If anything the drug problem is worse there.

 

[ms finch]

Back when the Bali bombings occurred, the Australian government wanted us to participate in the investigation, but our interpretation of our responsibilities as a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR meant that we couldn't, because the death penalty was on the table. So the Howard government reinterpreted this to allow us to participate in investigations until the point that charges carrying the death penalty were actually done. Prior to this change, the AFP could not have provided any of the information to the Indonesians about the Bali 9.

Fast forward to Schapelle Corby. At the time, 90% of Australians thought she was innocent and she was fast becoming a huge political issue for the government. Indonesia was also angry at our hypocrisy because we had advocated for death for the Bali Bombers, but seemed to take a different view for our own citizens. (This was an attitude that came back to haunt us when Andrew and Myu were executed.) The prosecutors in the Corby case were planning to ask for the death penalty for her, something that was taken off the table a week or so later when the Bali 9 were arrested. The Bali 9 were a walking bribe to Indonesia.

It is often said that Lee Rush, Scott's Dad, tipped off the authorities when a lawyer friend of his contacted the AFP about his concerns. He didn't. The AFP had been surveilling the cartel and group for weeks, if not months. They even knew Lawrence and Stephens had done a couple of prior runs, which they failed to arrest them for, allowing that heroin to make it to the streets and recognising that these guys were trivial players in the scheme of things. When Lee Rush's friend's contact put a note on Scott's passport and he was briefly paused at the airport while they checked, the more senior AFP officials told them to let him through.

The AFP also let go Rachel Diaz, who was 17, Chris Vo, who was 15, heading to Hong Kong, and Gordon Vuong, also 17, who ended up in Cambodia, as part of the same cartel's operations. They were tracking children, and literally had officers in the airport at the time who let them go.

There was no reason for the Australian government to hand over the information about the Bali 9 to Indonesia. There was enough to charge them in Australia before they left, they were able to track their passports, the drugs were only transiting through Indonesia and were destined for Australia so it was our problem, and they dealt with other members of the cartels in Australia. That's not to say that these guys didn't deserve to be punished, but it is no measure of justice that drug mules, who are usually vulnerable themselves and miniscule players in the scheme of things, some of whom were children, should face these types of harsh penalties, including the two who paid with their lives. It is also no measure of justice for a country to sell out its own citizens, especially for political reasons.

It's also time we changed our approach to drugs. People use drugs whether it is criminal or not, and the decriminalisation in Portugal has been a huge success in terms of rehabilitation and the reduction in associated criminal activity. The best way to shut down the large cartels and the devastating impact they have across the spectrum is to take the power away from them. You can't arrest your way out of a major issue, and locking up a few drug mules is not going to stop anything.

I am so glad they are home.

 

[jason_recliner]

You been to SE Asia and/or any country with the death penalty. You can not walk down the street in some of those places without been offered drugs of all kinds.
If anything the drug problem is worse there.

That's because you're a tourist in tourist areas. There is way less of a drug problem in Indonesia and Malaysia than in Australia because they actually deter people by way of harsh punishments. Especially in schools over there, where drug use is rare. Here, scum sells drugs to our children.

 

[Run n Spread]

Back when the Bali bombings occurred, the Australian government wanted us to participate in the investigation, but our interpretation of our responsibilities as a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR meant that we couldn't, because the death penalty was on the table. So the Howard government reinterpreted this to allow us to participate in investigations until the point that charges carrying the death penalty were actually done. Prior to this change, the AFP could not have provided any of the information to the Indonesians about the Bali 9.

Fast forward to Schapelle Corby. At the time, 90% of Australians thought she was innocent and she was fast becoming a huge political issue for the government. Indonesia was also angry at our hypocrisy because we had advocated for death for the Bali Bombers, but seemed to take a different view for our own citizens. (This was an attitude that came back to haunt us when Andrew and Myu were executed.) The prosecutors in the Corby case were planning to ask for the death penalty for her, something that was taken off the table a week or so later when the Bali 9 were arrested. The Bali 9 were a walking bribe to Indonesia.

It is often said that Lee Rush, Scott's Dad, tipped off the authorities when a lawyer friend of his contacted the AFP about his concerns. He didn't. The AFP had been surveilling the cartel and group for weeks, if not months. They even knew Lawrence and Stephens had done a couple of prior runs, which they failed to arrest them for, allowing that heroin to make it to the streets and recognising that these guys were trivial players in the scheme of things. When Lee Rush's friend's contact put a note on Scott's passport and he was briefly paused at the airport while they checked, the more senior AFP officials told them to let him through.

The AFP also let go Rachel Diaz, who was 17, Chris Vo, who was 15, heading to Hong Kong, and Gordon Vuong, also 17, who ended up in Cambodia, as part of the same cartel's operations. They were tracking children, and literally had officers in the airport at the time who let them go.

There was no reason for the Australian government to hand over the information about the Bali 9 to Indonesia. There was enough to charge them in Australia before they left, they were able to track their passports, the drugs were only transiting through Indonesia and were destined for Australia so it was our problem, and they dealt with other members of the cartels in Australia. That's not to say that these guys didn't deserve to be punished, but it is no measure of justice that drug mules, who are usually vulnerable themselves and miniscule players in the scheme of things, some of whom were children, should face these types of harsh penalties, including the two who paid with their lives. It is also no measure of justice for a country to sell out its own citizens, especially for political reasons.

It's also time we changed our approach to drugs. People use drugs whether it is criminal or not, and the decriminalisation in Portugal has been a huge success in terms of rehabilitation and the reduction in associated criminal activity. The best way to shut down the large cartels and the devastating impact they have across the spectrum is to take the power away from them. You can't arrest your way out of a major issue, and locking up a few drug mules is not going to stop anything.

I am so glad they are home.

Excellent post.
I remember Corby mania was at fever pitch.
While it was probably an AFP bribe the Bali 9 also was the worse PR for Corby.
Look at all these Aussie drug smugglers they must be guilty. So Indonesia took the death penalty off the table but enforced a harsh sanction without much push back.

 

[ms finch]

Excellent post.
I remember Corby mania was at fever pitch.
While it was probably an AFP bribe the Bali 9 also was the worse PR for Corby.
Look at all these Aussie drug smugglers they must be guilty. So Indonesia took the death penalty off the table but enforced a harsh sanction without much push back.

Thanks.

The Indonesians were never going to go lightly on Schapelle. They were adamant she was guilty from the start and the first theory she and her family pushed was the one about the Bali customs people setting her up, not to mention the repeated absolute trashing of the Indonesians. It was only when Robin Tampoe popped into the fray with Ron the mobile phone guy and went, "Err, guys, that's not a good strategy, perhaps blame Aussie baggage handlers instead" that their narrative changed. She was told by many experts at the time that if she plead guilty and showed respect she'd get six years and be out in three, but if she kept going she'd get 20+ years. So I don't think the Bali 9 made her look bad to the Indonesians at all; their arrests thoroughly saved her ass.

Schapelle was monstrously angry when the Bali 9 were arrested, though.

And yes, it was truly Corby mania. It was dominating everything and not only threatening our government, but threatening bilateral relations, which have always been strained anyway. The government had to find a way to both shut down the risks to Schapelle to appease the Australian public and also appease the Indonesians. Their solution was 9 other mules on a platter, who they correctly judged the Australian public wouldn't care about so much.

Shout out to Mary Jane Veloso and Sergei Attaloui, both of whom just escaped execution in 2015 (Mary Jane literally at the 11th hour), and who are also finally going home.

 

[Run n Spread]

Thanks.

The Indonesians were never going to go lightly on Schapelle. They were adamant she was guilty from the start and the first theory she and her family pushed was the one about the Bali customs people setting her up, not to mention the repeated absolute trashing of the Indonesians. It was only when Robin Tampoe popped into the fray with Ron the mobile phone guy and went, "Err, guys, that's not a good strategy, perhaps blame Aussie baggage handlers instead" that their narrative changed. She was told by many experts at the time that if she plead guilty and showed respect she'd get six years and be out in three, but if she kept going she'd get 20+ years. So I don't think the Bali 9 made her look bad to the Indonesians at all; their arrests thoroughly saved her ass.

Schapelle was monstrously angry when the Bali 9 were arrested, though.

And yes, it was truly Corby mania. It was dominating everything and not only threatening our government, but threatening bilateral relations, which have always been strained anyway. The government had to find a way to both shut down the risks to Schapelle to appease the Australian public and also appease the Indonesians. Their solution was 9 other mules on a platter, who they correctly judged the Australian public wouldn't care about so much.

Shout out to Mary Jane Veloso and Sergei Attaloui, both of whom just escaped execution in 2015 (Mary Jane literally at the 11th hour), and who are also finally going home.

Thing was a bunch of QANTAS baggage handlers did get done for smuggling stuff between states at the time. (Not sure it was drugs most likely but they were definitely goings dodgy goings on)
The rumours than started the Corbys were the biggest smugglers in Bali and old man Corby (terminally ill at the time) was the Godfather.
Interestingly a Michelle Leslie took the opposite approach. Shut the **** up.and convert to Islam. Was out in 3 months.
Interestingly I was in Bali around 6 months after the executions. The Balinese locals I spoke to weren't fussed either way. But one pointed out this was driven out of Jakarta where the political opinions were really flying. (Also not a lot of loved lost in some parts between the Balinese and main island Indonesians) so that is all going on in the background

 

[ms finch]

Thing was a bunch of QANTAS baggage handlers did get done for smuggling stuff between states at the time. (Not sure it was drugs most likely but they were definitely goings dodgy goings on)
The rumours than started the Corbys were the biggest smugglers in Bali and old man Corby (terminally ill at the time) was the Godfather.
Interestingly a Michelle Leslie took the opposite approach. Shut the **** up.and convert to Islam. Was out in 3 months.
Interestingly I was in Bali around 6 months after the executions. The Balinese locals I spoke to weren't fussed either way. But one pointed out this was driven out of Jakarta where the political opinions were really flying. (Also not a lot of loved lost in some parts between the Balinese and main island Indonesians) so that is all going on in the background

At the time the baggage handlers getting busted seemed pretty wild to me, but then in hindsight it didn't. Baggage handlers had been shuffling stuff around the country for years, and QANTAS were determined to do something about their reputation, which was getting trashed as a result of the Corby situation, so they finally decided to investigate a bit. But more than that, there was a drug ring, even involving senior NSW police, who were using baggage handlers to get cocaine into the country. There ended up being major charges laid in this situation and the whole organisation and manner in which they operated came out. But police were already looking in to that when Schapelle was charged. It just so happened that the dates and times aligned.

I do not know of any cartel dumb enough to use 4.2kgs of marijuana in a boogie board bag as a "decoy" for a small block of cocaine. Nor can I imagine a baggage handler lugging 4.2kgs of marijuana into their workspace in a boogie board bag to ship it around the country. These things are all done in small packages for a reason - because they are more difficult to detect and fit into suitcases. Not to mention that I think workmates might wonder why old mate has lugged his surfboard into work and is ferreting around with it in the baggage area.

Lots of tensions between the mainland and Bali. It was said that the protesters chanting for death during the trials were agitators from the mainland, and not at all connected to the local Balinese. I've never gotten the impression that the Bali community is particularly inclined towards the death penalty.

Michelle Leslie knew what she was doing. However, she also paid a substantial bribe for that; and a lot of the attitude and apparent conversion were to lend support, show respect and give justification so it wasn't totally apparent that she paid her way out. Schapelle too was offered the opportunity to bribe her way out; I believe the figure was $350K. The Bali 9 were never given that option, which was another component I found interesting.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

Back when the Bali bombings occurred, the Australian government wanted us to participate in the investigation, but our interpretation of our responsibilities as a signatory to the Second Optional Protocol of the ICCPR meant that we couldn't, because the death penalty was on the table. So the Howard government reinterpreted this to allow us to participate in investigations until the point that charges carrying the death penalty were actually done. Prior to this change, the AFP could not have provided any of the information to the Indonesians about the Bali 9.

Fast forward to Schapelle Corby. At the time, 90% of Australians thought she was innocent and she was fast becoming a huge political issue for the government. Indonesia was also angry at our hypocrisy because we had advocated for death for the Bali Bombers, but seemed to take a different view for our own citizens. (This was an attitude that came back to haunt us when Andrew and Myu were executed.) The prosecutors in the Corby case were planning to ask for the death penalty for her, something that was taken off the table a week or so later when the Bali 9 were arrested. The Bali 9 were a walking bribe to Indonesia.

It is often said that Lee Rush, Scott's Dad, tipped off the authorities when a lawyer friend of his contacted the AFP about his concerns. He didn't. The AFP had been surveilling the cartel and group for weeks, if not months. They even knew Lawrence and Stephens had done a couple of prior runs, which they failed to arrest them for, allowing that heroin to make it to the streets and recognising that these guys were trivial players in the scheme of things. When Lee Rush's friend's contact put a note on Scott's passport and he was briefly paused at the airport while they checked, the more senior AFP officials told them to let him through.

The AFP also let go Rachel Diaz, who was 17, Chris Vo, who was 15, heading to Hong Kong, and Gordon Vuong, also 17, who ended up in Cambodia, as part of the same cartel's operations. They were tracking children, and literally had officers in the airport at the time who let them go.

There was no reason for the Australian government to hand over the information about the Bali 9 to Indonesia. There was enough to charge them in Australia before they left, they were able to track their passports, the drugs were only transiting through Indonesia and were destined for Australia so it was our problem, and they dealt with other members of the cartels in Australia. That's not to say that these guys didn't deserve to be punished, but it is no measure of justice that drug mules, who are usually vulnerable themselves and miniscule players in the scheme of things, some of whom were children, should face these types of harsh penalties, including the two who paid with their lives. It is also no measure of justice for a country to sell out its own citizens, especially for political reasons.

It's also time we changed our approach to drugs. People use drugs whether it is criminal or not, and the decriminalisation in Portugal has been a huge success in terms of rehabilitation and the reduction in associated criminal activity. The best way to shut down the large cartels and the devastating impact they have across the spectrum is to take the power away from them. You can't arrest your way out of a major issue, and locking up a few drug mules is not going to stop anything.

I am so glad they are home.

All that is very well and good but has nothing to do with whether a) they should come home and b) whether they should be serving further sentences in Australian jails or in the community.

Frankly I am very unsympathetic to the second chance argument because the majority of people affected by the drugs that get through rarely get a second chance as most of them die directly or indirectly through drugs.

I also think IF you are going to bring people back in these circumstances you need specific conditions. Such as those people not being able to access government payments-because the reality is they won't reintegrate into work easily (whether it's their fault or not that's reality) and the taxpayers will end up bearing the brunt of the cost. I absolutely agree with the other poster who said you should pass legislation to ensure that they have no legal capacity to get $1 or more from any deals with media outlets and any money collected that way should go to programs that support drug rehabilitation.

I also think we are creating a circumstance in which we are allowing churches and other special interest groups are being allowed to use the media to push to get people back on 'humanitarian' grounds and know they will never have to give up anything to support them-ultimately taxpayers will foot the bill.

In circumstances like these if special interest groups want these people home fine and if the government allows it fine but those special interest groups should be responsible for paying the cost of supporting these people in the community for the next few decades (as an alternative to them receiving government payments) and they should fund raise to cover those costs. That would indicate they have a real conviction in their views and are prepared to sacrifice for them. At the moment it's all political grandstanding as it will never have to cost them anything.

 

[ms finch]

All that is very well and good but has nothing to do with whether a) they should come home and b) whether they should be serving further sentences in Australian jails or in the community.

Frankly I am very unsympathetic to the second chance argument because the majority of people affected by the drugs that get through rarely get a second chance as most of them die directly or indirectly through drugs.

I also think IF you are going to bring people back in these circumstances you need specific conditions. Such as those people not being able to access government payments-because the reality is they won't reintegrate into work easily (whether it's their fault or not that's reality) and the taxpayers will end up bearing the brunt of the cost. I absolutely agree with the other poster who said you should pass legislation to ensure that they have no legal capacity to get $1 or more from any deals with media outlets and any money collected that way should go to programs that support drug rehabilitation.

I also think we are creating a circumstance in which we are allowing churches and other special interest groups are being allowed to use the media to push to get people back on 'humanitarian' grounds and know they will never have to give up anything to support them-ultimately taxpayers will foot the bill.

In circumstances like these if special interest groups want these people home fine and if the government allows it fine but those special interest groups should be responsible for paying the cost of supporting these people in the community for the next few decades (as an alternative to them receiving government payments) and they should fund raise to cover those costs. That would indicate they have a real conviction in their views and are prepared to sacrifice for them. At the moment it's all political grandstanding as it will never have to cost them anything.

The majority of people who take drugs don't die from them or, for that matter, destroy their lives. People are using recreational drugs all the time, and most of them don't end up dead; if they did we'd have tens of thousands of deaths a day. But again, criminalisation of everything to do with drugs does not stop the importation or proliferation of them because there is a market for them. People want to use drugs recreationally, and have done in pretty substantial quantities for decades. It is countries like Portugal, who take a humane approach with decriminalisation, who have made a difference in the outcomes for individuals who develop problems, not countries that look to punish their way out of the problem.

In a civilised society, social safety nets are for everyone. In any case, we do not remove them from other people with criminal convictions, so why are you proposing we arbitrarily single out these five individuals? Would you also like to propose your arbitrary morality on others as well and pick and choose who is entitled to social security and who isn't? Would you also deny them healthcare and use of education facilities and roads, all of which are paid for by the taxpayer? Furthermore, it is totally counterproductive. When you take away social safety nets that is when people turn to crime because they have no other mechanism to support themselves. They can't make money from writing about their crimes, due to the Proceeds of Crimes Act, legislation that has been around for many years after the government decided it was sick of Chopper Reid profiting from his crimes with books and interviews and TV shows. You might want to look that up before you start making assumptions.

But if you want to look at it from a purely financial perspective, what makes you think the Indonesians should have footed the bill for their incarceration for all these years when they were our problem? They grew up here, they got involved with the cartels here, they were bringing the drugs here. They were always our responsibility financially. It also costs the Australian taxpayer an absolute fortune when people are incarcerated overseas. We provide funding for consular assistance, to ensure their needs are met, to fly families back and forth, to engage additional medical care where necessary, and often for legal services. Indeed, it would have been substantially cheaper if they'd stopped these guys at the airport and arrested them for more minor crimes involved in the planning, with entirely the same outcomes. It is cheaper that they have been brought home and freed, even if they live on social security benefits for the rest of their lives.

The people who advocated for the Bali 9, and who advocate for other prisoners overseas, are an enormous cross section of the community, people from all walks of life. They are not special interest groups, and I think making that assumption based on the handful of people who have made public statements and their backgrounds is utterly disingenuous. There are often people like pastors and reverends involved in support roles, because comfort and care is literally their job description, but they are by no means the primary drivers in these situations.

The Australian government has advocated for the repatriation of its citizens incarcerated overseas for decades. It's not a new phenomenon that has sprung up. It is also a standard practice of almost every country around the world to advocate for its citizens and bring them home.

You also seem to have completely sidestepped my commentary, particularly about the AFP sacrificing children, including one as young as 15, to this. Where does that fit on your morality spectrum? Should Rachel Diaz, Gordon Vuong and Chris Vo also be denied any supports from the Australian government? Should they have been left in jails in Hong Kong and Cambodia?

My post does answer whether they should be at home. They were sold out by the AFP, for nothing to do with impacting the criminal drugs trade. They could have been arrested here, the AFP had enough evidence to go after the higher ups in the cartel, which they did, and that would still have stopped the heroin making it to Australia. The exact same outcomes could have been achieved if they had been stopped from leaving in the first place. I don't believe we should be offering up citizens as bribes to other countries.

Most of them were incredibly young. While we can argue there is a legal difference between someone 17 and 18/19, I don't think there is much of a psychological difference. I think expecting someone of that age to fully understand the degree of grooming to which they have been subjected, to overcome their own vulnerabilities and any threats to which they have been subjected, and to truly comprehend the magnitude of being a drug mule is pretty unreasonable. It's no coincidence that they were young, because those are the easiest people to target.

Their sentences were incredibly disproportionate to the circumstances of their crime, and not remotely in keeping with what Australia itself and a multitude of other humanitarian-oriented countries and international law regards as acceptable. These guys weren't controlling the drug trade in any way; they were just pawns in a massive cartel operation. It's easy to see them badly, because they had the heroin strapped to their bodies, but they didn't arrange it, or pay for it, or organise its proliferation around Australia. Legally we would have a hard time keeping them incarcerated here precisely because our laws do not support such strong sentences, and any ongoing incarceration could be challenged on that basis. There is nothing to be accomplished by continuing to incarcerate them.

 

[Pure_Ownage]

The majority of people who take drugs don't die from them or, for that matter, destroy their lives. People are using recreational drugs all the time, and most of them don't end up dead; if they did we'd have tens of thousands of deaths a day. But again, criminalisation of everything to do with drugs does not stop the importation or proliferation of them because there is a market for them. People want to use drugs recreationally, and have done in pretty substantial quantities for decades. It is countries like Portugal, who take a humane approach with decriminalisation, who have made a difference in the outcomes for individuals who develop problems, not countries that look to punish their way out of the problem.

In a civilised society, social safety nets are for everyone. In any case, we do not remove them from other people with criminal convictions, so why are you proposing we arbitrarily single out these five individuals? Would you also like to propose your arbitrary morality on others as well and pick and choose who is entitled to social security and who isn't? Would you also deny them healthcare and use of education facilities and roads, all of which are paid for by the taxpayer? Furthermore, it is totally counterproductive. When you take away social safety nets that is when people turn to crime because they have no other mechanism to support themselves. They can't make money from writing about their crimes, due to the Proceeds of Crimes Act, legislation that has been around for many years after the government decided it was sick of Chopper Reid profiting from his crimes with books and interviews and TV shows. You might want to look that up before you start making assumptions.

But if you want to look at it from a purely financial perspective, what makes you think the Indonesians should have footed the bill for their incarceration for all these years when they were our problem? They grew up here, they got involved with the cartels here, they were bringing the drugs here. They were always our responsibility financially. It also costs the Australian taxpayer an absolute fortune when people are incarcerated overseas. We provide funding for consular assistance, to ensure their needs are met, to fly families back and forth, to engage additional medical care where necessary, and often for legal services. Indeed, it would have been substantially cheaper if they'd stopped these guys at the airport and arrested them for more minor crimes involved in the planning, with entirely the same outcomes. It is cheaper that they have been brought home and freed, even if they live on social security benefits for the rest of their lives.

The people who advocated for the Bali 9, and who advocate for other prisoners overseas, are an enormous cross section of the community, people from all walks of life. They are not special interest groups, and I think making that assumption based on the handful of people who have made public statements and their backgrounds is utterly disingenuous. There are often people like pastors and reverends involved in support roles, because comfort and care is literally their job description, but they are by no means the primary drivers in these situations.

The Australian government has advocated for the repatriation of its citizens incarcerated overseas for decades. It's not a new phenomenon that has sprung up. It is also a standard practice of almost every country around the world to advocate for its citizens and bring them home.

You also seem to have completely sidestepped my commentary, particularly about the AFP sacrificing children, including one as young as 15, to this. Where does that fit on your morality spectrum? Should Rachel Diaz, Gordon Vuong and Chris Vo also be denied any supports from the Australian government? Should they have been left in jails in Hong Kong and Cambodia?

To answer your question yes I would heavily restrict access (ie cut it off) to social security to a variety of Australians convicted of serious crimes here or abroad. I wasn't proposing to restrict it to these 5 alone but the changes in this case represent part of bigger changes that need to be made.

Frankly the argument that the majority of drug takers might live misses the point. While they might be fortunate to tends of thousands of others die either through drug overdoses or associated crime events (DV is a classic example of this).

In regards to the argument that if you remove access to social security people will commit further crimes its a poor one. Firstly if you're saying that you're saying essentially they only won't commit crime if the money is there to support them. So if removing that is all it takes to put them back in crime they clearly weren't that committed to staying out of jail to begin with. Secondly the opposite argument is not saying they are not allowed to have support from anywhere its only saying this shouldn't come from the taxpayer.

You already have Christie Buckingham talking to media outlets today trying to get herself in the news for the assistance she's giving despite the fact that she won't be footing the bill for it the taxpayer will. The politicians making those decisions won't foot the bill either they will be on large funded retirement packages while the average taxpayer is still footing the bill. The point I'm making is that very wealthy churches (like pastoral buckinghams) more than have the capacity to re direct their capital towards financially supporting people in this circumstance-which would indicate they genuinely believe in bringing them home rather than words which are cheap as they won't cost them a dollar. There's a big difference between private citizens who choose to donate money to a church knowing it will or may be used to support causes like this and taxpayers who have no choice in handing their money over used to fund what you're suggesting. If the church wants to personally foot the bill for this that's their choice but the government should not be funding it. And that's nothing against the Bali 9 themselves as people its the wider principle here.

As for the AFP issue I agree with you and frankly that should be investigated and depending on how systemic the issue is people should lose their jobs and potentially face prosecution (although there's a higher standard of proof there). But that's a completely separate issue from what should or shouldn't happen when the prisoners come home and I don't think you can link the two issues in the way that you are.

 

[ms finch]

To answer your question yes I would heavily restrict access (ie cut it off) to social security to a variety of Australians convicted of serious crimes here or abroad. I wasn't proposing to restrict it to these 5 alone but the changes in this case represent part of bigger changes that need to be made.

Frankly the argument that the majority of drug takers might live misses the point. While they might be fortunate to tends of thousands of others die either through drug overdoses or associated crime events (DV is a classic example of this).

In regards to the argument that if you remove access to social security people will commit further crimes its a poor one. Firstly if you're saying that you're saying essentially they only won't commit crime if the money is there to support them. So if removing that is all it takes to put them back in crime they clearly weren't that committed to staying out of jail to begin with. Secondly the opposite argument is not saying they are not allowed to have support from anywhere its only saying this shouldn't come from the taxpayer.

You already have Christie Buckingham talking to media outlets today trying to get herself in the news for the assistance she's giving despite the fact that she won't be footing the bill for it the taxpayer will. The politicians making those decisions won't foot the bill either they will be on large funded retirement packages while the average taxpayer is still footing the bill. The point I'm making is that very wealthy churches (like pastoral buckinghams) more than have the capacity to re direct their capital towards financially supporting people in this circumstance-which would indicate they genuinely believe in bringing them home rather than words which are cheap as they won't cost them a dollar. There's a big difference between private citizens who choose to donate money to a church knowing it will or may be used to support causes like this and taxpayers who have no choice in handing their money over used to fund what you're suggesting. If the church wants to personally foot the bill for this that's their choice but the government should not be funding it. And that's nothing against the Bali 9 themselves as people its the wider principle here.

As for the AFP issue I agree with you and frankly that should be investigated and depending on how systemic the issue is people should lose their jobs and potentially face prosecution (although there's a higher standard of proof there). But that's a completely separate issue from what should or shouldn't happen when the prisoners come home and I don't think you can link the two issues in the way that you are.

Alcohol, a fully legal drug that is socially acceptable, kills a lot more people than any of the recreational drugs do, and also causes huge societal problems. A vendetta against recreational illicit drug use ignores the facts both about them and about what is harmful to society.

My argument about social security is well supported by enormous amounts of evidence. I did not say that if you have social security it fully prevents crime but that if you remove it you increase crime. If people do not have food to eat or a place to live they have no choice but to resort to crime in the immediate future, and it becomes cyclical. We know that a lack of support for people who are released from prison results in greater problems to society. You are ignoring the fact that not only is this completely removed from what we consider civilised, and also legal obligations, but that it costs more if we put people in positions where they are likely to continue a life of crime. The cost of subsequently incarcerating someone, not to mention the costs within society, are far greater than any social safety net we provide.

What the AFP did is directly relevant in this situation because it is what resulted in this happening; the situations are directly linked. If we accept what the AFP did as wrong then we accept that what happened to the Bali 9 was wrong, and we shouldn't just abandon them because they ended up being pawns in political games. On a broader level, there is no difference in people imprisoned for crimes overseas and those imprisoned here. People imprisoned in Australia are released after they have served their sentences, and paroled when they behave themselves in prison, and there is no difference in this or many other situations where people are imprisoned overseas and subsequently repatriated here. We have a responsibility to them as Australian citizens, and also given that it is Australia that shaped them to be who they are. It is otherwise an arbitrary distinction.

You need to stop singling out the churches in this situation just because some individual pastors are the ones in the public arena at the moment. The work to get the Bali 9 home was predominantly done by lawyers, advocates, academics and members of the general population. Some of these were people with a specific human rights background, but many came from other walks of life. Lumping people like Lex Lasry (now a Supreme Court Judge in Victoria) and Julian McMahon (nominated for Australian of the Year) into church groups or claiming they are part of a special interest group, not to mention the various researchers and broad spectrum of supporters, is both absurd and wrong. There were many, many non religious people involved in this, and also many church groups who were anti it.

Christie Buckingham is simply more comfortable in the spotlight than many of those involved. But also, she was the pastor who supported Myu through his execution. She literally counselled him while he was tied to a stake and stood metres away while they were all shot, comforting others who were also witnesses. Whatever else you may think of the crimes these guys committed, Christie took on one of the most horrific roles imaginable in all of this. While she subsequently advocated for her congregation to be supportive, her choice to get involved and do this was a personal decision. It showed a strength and courage beyond most of humanity, and no doubt had a profound impact on her. She also got to know the others due to the amount of time she spent involved with Myu. So the return of the remaining five is personally meaningful to her and is also certainly going to stir up some long held distressing emotions. Don't confuse her support role and personal involvement with some sort of broad ranging church campaign or something that is representative of everything to do with this situation. She's not my personal cup of tea, but I would never disparage nor twist what she did here.

 

[faible]

In regards to the argument that if you remove access to social security people will commit further crimes its a poor one. Firstly if you're saying that you're saying essentially they only won't commit crime if the money is there to support them. So if removing that is all it takes to put them back in crime they clearly weren't that committed to staying out of jail to begin with

This is an extremely bad take, one that ignores almost every single thing we know about poverty and crime.

If you want to reduce crime, you'd do the opposite of what you're suggesting.

 

[jason_recliner]

Alcohol, a fully legal drug that is socially acceptable, kills a lot more people than any of the recreational drugs do, and also causes huge societal problems. A vendetta against recreational illicit drug use ignores the facts both about them and about what is harmful to society.

My argument about social security is well supported by enormous amounts of evidence. I did not say that if you have social security it fully prevents crime but that if you remove it you increase crime. If people do not have food to eat or a place to live they have no choice but to resort to crime in the immediate future, and it becomes cyclical. We know that a lack of support for people who are released from prison results in greater problems to society. You are ignoring the fact that not only is this completely removed from what we consider civilised, and also legal obligations, but that it costs more if we put people in positions where they are likely to continue a life of crime. The cost of subsequently incarcerating someone, not to mention the costs within society, are far greater than any social safety net we provide.

What the AFP did is directly relevant in this situation because it is what resulted in this happening; the situations are directly linked. If we accept what the AFP did as wrong then we accept that what happened to the Bali 9 was wrong, and we shouldn't just abandon them because they ended up being pawns in political games. On a broader level, there is no difference in people imprisoned for crimes overseas and those imprisoned here. People imprisoned in Australia are released after they have served their sentences, and paroled when they behave themselves in prison, and there is no difference in this or many other situations where people are imprisoned overseas and subsequently repatriated here. We have a responsibility to them as Australian citizens, and also given that it is Australia that shaped them to be who they are. It is otherwise an arbitrary distinction.

You need to stop singling out the churches in this situation just because some individual pastors are the ones in the public arena at the moment. The work to get the Bali 9 home was predominantly done by lawyers, advocates, academics and members of the general population. Some of these were people with a specific human rights background, but many came from other walks of life. Lumping people like Lex Lasry (now a Supreme Court Judge in Victoria) and Julian McMahon (nominated for Australian of the Year) into church groups or claiming they are part of a special interest group, not to mention the various researchers and broad spectrum of supporters, is both absurd and wrong. There were many, many non religious people involved in this, and also many church groups who were anti it.

Christie Buckingham is simply more comfortable in the spotlight than many of those involved. But also, she was the pastor who supported Myu through his execution. She literally counselled him while he was tied to a stake and stood metres away while they were all shot, comforting others who were also witnesses. Whatever else you may think of the crimes these guys committed, Christie took on one of the most horrific roles imaginable in all of this. While she subsequently advocated for her congregation to be supportive, her choice to get involved and do this was a personal decision. It showed a strength and courage beyond most of humanity, and no doubt had a profound impact on her. She also got to know the others due to the amount of time she spent involved with Myu. So the return of the remaining five is personally meaningful to her and is also certainly going to stir up some long held distressing emotions. Don't confuse her support role and personal involvement with some sort of broad ranging church campaign or something that is representative of everything to do with this situation. She's not my personal cup of tea, but I would never disparage nor twist what she did here.

Where to begin...

Alcohol causes more harm than other drugs because it is readily available and consumed and abused in far greater volumes than other drugs. The answer to reducing harm is not to increase the availability and legality of other drugs.

Drugs generally don't kill people. They prevent them from reaching their potential, make people settle for mediocrity, and make them different from who they really are, to the detriment of family and other relationships, and productivity. That's the harm, that's why they're illegal.

 

[ms finch]

Where to begin...

Alcohol causes more harm than other drugs because it is readily available and consumed and abused in far greater volumes than other drugs. The answer to reducing harm is not to increase the availability and legality of other drugs.

Drugs generally don't kill people. They prevent them from reaching their potential, make people settle for mediocrity, and make them different from who they really are, to the detriment of family and other relationships. That's the harm, that's why they're illegal.

Portugal's decision to decriminalise drug use has seen a reduction in health, societal and criminal problems. There is also plenty of evidence that alcohol, even in small quantities, is harmful, and certainly more harmful than marijuana and psychedelics. Not to mention the comparison issues with illicit drugs to issues associated with some prescribed medications. Points being that criminalisation and the arbitrary line in the sand we have drawn as to what is legal and illegal, are at best unhelpful and at worst detrimental to the impact on society.

There are numerous things in life that have all the impacts you describe and we don't police people's choices about those. Moreover, they are all thoroughly subjective measures, and ignore people's right to choose whether they fulfil their potential and the type of relationships they have. There are plenty of people who make what someone else might call poor decisions about their lives without the impact of any drugs.

 

[jason_recliner]

Portugal's decision to decriminalise drug use has seen a reduction in health, societal and criminal problems. There is also plenty of evidence that alcohol, even in small quantities, is harmful, and certainly more harmful than marijuana and psychedelics. Not to mention the comparison issues with illicit drugs to issues associated with some prescribed medications. Points being that criminalisation and the arbitrary line in the sand we have drawn as to what is legal and illegal, are at best unhelpful and at worst detrimental to the impact on society.

There are numerous things in life that have all the impacts you describe and we don't police people's choices about those. Moreover, they are all thoroughly subjective measures, and ignore people's right to choose whether they fulfil their potential and the type of relationships they have. There are plenty of people who make what someone else might call poor decisions about their lives without the impact of any drugs.

You've completely missed the point. The answer to more fulfilled, more connected, more productive people is less drugs, not more. We can't stop idiots making idiotic choices but we can work to make it as hard as possible for them to harm themselves, their family, their loved ones, their friends, and their colleagues/associates, with drugs, and also deter them from doing so with meaningful punishments. The Portugal claims are questionable at best. If you want to understand what decriminalisation of drugs can do, look into Portland, Oregon - ask residents and government there if it was a success.

 

[jason_recliner]

To answer your question yes I would heavily restrict access (ie cut it off) to social security to a variety of Australians convicted of serious crimes here or abroad. I wasn't proposing to restrict it to these 5 alone but the changes in this case represent part of bigger changes that need to be made.

Frankly the argument that the majority of drug takers might live misses the point. While they might be fortunate to tends of thousands of others die either through drug overdoses or associated crime events (DV is a classic example of this).

In regards to the argument that if you remove access to social security people will commit further crimes its a poor one. Firstly if you're saying that you're saying essentially they only won't commit crime if the money is there to support them. So if removing that is all it takes to put them back in crime they clearly weren't that committed to staying out of jail to begin with. Secondly the opposite argument is not saying they are not allowed to have support from anywhere its only saying this shouldn't come from the taxpayer.

You already have Christie Buckingham talking to media outlets today trying to get herself in the news for the assistance she's giving despite the fact that she won't be footing the bill for it the taxpayer will. The politicians making those decisions won't foot the bill either they will be on large funded retirement packages while the average taxpayer is still footing the bill. The point I'm making is that very wealthy churches (like pastoral buckinghams) more than have the capacity to re direct their capital towards financially supporting people in this circumstance-which would indicate they genuinely believe in bringing them home rather than words which are cheap as they won't cost them a dollar. There's a big difference between private citizens who choose to donate money to a church knowing it will or may be used to support causes like this and taxpayers who have no choice in handing their money over used to fund what you're suggesting. If the church wants to personally foot the bill for this that's their choice but the government should not be funding it. And that's nothing against the Bali 9 themselves as people its the wider principle here.

As for the AFP issue I agree with you and frankly that should be investigated and depending on how systemic the issue is people should lose their jobs and potentially face prosecution (although there's a higher standard of proof there). But that's a completely separate issue from what should or shouldn't happen when the prisoners come home and I don't think you can link the two issues in the way that you are.

Yep. Great post.

 

[ms finch]

You've completely missed the point. The answer to more fulfilled, more connected, more productive people is less drugs, not more. We can't stop idiots making idiotic choices but we can work to make it as hard as possible for them to harm themselves, their family, their loved ones, their friends, and their colleagues/associates, with drugs. The Portugal claims are questionable at best. If you want to understand what decriminalisation of drugs can do, look into Portland, Oregon - ask residents and government there if it was a success.

The Portugal claims are not questionable. They have decades of data.

I haven't missed the point. You are missing mine. People do not have to be fulfilled, connected and productive to their absolute maximum if they don't want to be, nor is it anyone else's right to decide what someone's full potential is, and there are innumerable people who are not regardless of drugs. There are also many people who use drugs recreationally and have successful lives and relationships. To suggest that drugs are somehow responsible for problems in society, rather than a symptom or have a varied impact, is to completely dispense with cause and effect and a gross oversimplification.

 

[jason_recliner]

The Portugal claims are not questionable. They have decades of data.

I haven't missed the point. You are missing mine. People do not have to be fulfilled, connected and productive to their absolute maximum if they don't want to be, nor is it anyone else's right to decide what someone's full potential is, and there are innumerable people who are not regardless of drugs. There are also many people who use drugs recreationally and have successful lives and relationships. To suggest that drugs are somehow responsible for problems in society, rather than a symptom or have a varied impact, is to completely dispense with cause and effect and a gross oversimplification.

Why wouldn't we want people to be fulfilled, connected and productive??? I agree that if people don't have families and don't work with other people, and hence their poor decisions aren't harming anybody and they have no responsibilities towards anybody, then yeah they can do what they want as long as they are paying for it and don't expect society to come to their assistance or pay for their healthcare. Like I said, look at Portland, Oregon.