admin

Please take our poll.

sweet~sage

I was under the impression they were *directly* responsible.... considering they were chasing the case, not the Indonesians. Or am I mistaken?

__________________
- once they pull the trigger, there is no turning back -

kate2006

Hi Sweet Sage

I think that there was a combined operation involving the AFP and the Indonesian police, what happened as a consequence of that cooperation is what concerns me.

I think we are all confused over this - and are meant to be. What was first reported has been swamped by duck speak. I think the difference between the two quotes given below wont help us better understand either, but might be a clue as to why authorities have got away with allowing it to happen.

Not being a lawyer I know I have no chance of weeding truth from technicality, but will be interested in your comments - if we don’t understand what protection we can legally expect when we travel overseas how can we know what weasel words will be used to confuse and confine us if we get into difficulties, however, unknowingly?

This goes beyond what happened to the Bali Nine due to the decision of the AFP - if it has created a precedent, what will come next?

I posted this link in the what was the General section - now Supporter Chat:

http://info.anu.edu.au/mac/Newslette...n/_bronitt.asp

states in part:

“Interestingly, at the time of writing this, another person (a citizen of South Korea) has been arrested at Brisbane Airport and charged with conspiracy to import the drugs in the Bali nine case. This young man is fortunate that he was not arrested in Indonesia, as he will likely not face extradition.”

Also:

“Before moving to the legality of the police action in the Bali nine case, it is important to understand the wider legal context governing cooperation between Australia and Indonesia. Had one of the Bali nine boarded a plane and been intercepted in Australia, a request for extradition to Indonesia could have occurred. Such requests for assistance are governed by the Mutual Assistance In Criminal Matters Act 1987 (Cth) and the Mutual Assistance Treaty between Australia and Indonesia 1999. Both legal texts stipulate that the Attorney-General must refuse the request for assistance in cases which may lead to the death penalty. The 1987 Act allows assistance in death penalty cases but only in “special circumstances” (which are not defined). These limits are tantamount to a national policy opposing the imposition of the death penalty: congruent with our domestic stance which abolished the imposition of capital punishment for federal offences in 1973.

But the question in this case was whether these strong statements of principle bound the AFP. As Justice Finn pointed out, the issue in the Bali nine case was about cooperation in policing (as opposed to cooperation in justice matters via the Attorney-General). In the field of operational policing, Justice Finn found that the relevant policeguidelines on police cooperation adopt a different approach, lawfully permitting the AFP to continue to render assistance irrespective of whether overseas investigation may result in charges carrying the death penalty.“

AussieJBL

from my knowledge, i though the AFP knew of this drug syndicate well before they even left Australian shores, so I think they are most definately partly responsible for what is happening right now...they are not 100% to blame, because the Bali 9 didn't have to do it, but the AFP most definately made sure they handed 6 or them the bullet.

shazstar

Yes, they are. They knew what the likely outcome was and that these young people would probably be sentenced to death. They should have waited until they arrived back before arresting them at customs. The AFP and the government people that approved the tip-off should all be charged with Voluntary Manslaughter. They knew the risks and did it anyway.