Saturday, February 6, 2010

More questions to Kevin Rudd . . .














Some excellent comments from D J Wolf, reproduced here . . .

"Most Australians have been lead to believe that stupid Australians are still taking marijuana to Bali because "big money can be made selling Australian marijuana there." However, anyone who has been to Bali and has been harrassed by Indonesian drug dealers following the tourists like blow flies knows how preposterous such an idea is. Regardless, Schapelle is still in prison and the Australian government has launched no inquiry or investigation into this alleged drug flow. Is it possible that the Australian government doesn't care if Australians are poisoning the youth of Indonesia?

The questions I would like to ask Rudd are as follows:

    1. Are Australians taking commercial quantities of marijuana to Bali?

    2. What investigations have been done to validate this alleged flow of drugs?

    3. Since no such flow of drugs appears to have been validated by a lack of seizures and arrests, why is Schapelle Corby still in prison?

    4. Why wasn't the complete lack of motive for Schapelle's crime made clear at her trial, to the Indonesian government, to the UN, and in applications to the Hague?

    5. Which was the truth and which were the lies? That the Brisbane CCTV footage was in good order and disappeared, that the cameras were under repair, or that the cameras were only switched on when persons of importance were known to be at the airport?

    6. Since all three stories cannot be true, at least two of them are proven lies. What investigation was carried out and what disciplinary action was taken against the liars?

    7. Why was there a need to lie if the Brisbane CCTV footage did not present a political dillema?

    8. How could there be a political dilemma if the Brisbane CCTV footage was inconclusive or showed Schapelle to be guilty?

    9. Why was it problematic for the Australian government to present evidence at Schapelle's trial? Why was this regarded as interference rather than assistance?

    10. Surely it would have been assistance if she were guilty and only interference if she were innocent?

    11. Since Indonesia claims to be a democracy surely they didn't want to convict the wrong person. How can a court that claims to adhere to the rule of law never be wrong?

    12. Given that Australia's national heroes such as the convicts, the diggers at Eureka, Ned Kelley and the Anzacs were all 'Australian battlers' before being used, abandoned, victimised, framed and sacrificed by those governing this nation of ours to appease some foreign power, what hope do you and your predecessor have, Prime Minister, that you will not also be demonised in history when a bronze statue of Schapelle Corby marks the houses of parliament with the words 'Never again appeasement' to herald in the new republic? With what excuse should coming generations remember you?

That's just a few from the top of my head. The point is that "What are you doing to get Schapelle home" is the question our government wants us to ask because they have a ready answer that equates to 'we are doing all we can to bring every criminal home'."