corby:right verdict, wrong reaction, page-36

re: chuck:corby:right verdict, wrong reaction Hey Chuck

who was the author of that rivetting article?

"Perhaps it is time to contemplate instead just what Corby has done; what indeed the drug demand of Australians has done to Indonesia."

So obviously not an unbiased article. The writer believes Corby is guilty and cannot accept that the majority either don't agree with him/her or at least are disgusted with the hypocrisy of such a corrupt country.

I also have noticed that rather than simply consider Corbys case people such as yourself and the writer have to make comparrisons to what is happening elsewhere. Hicks has nothing to do with this case and nor do any otherAustralian prisoners in jails in other countries.
Why attempt to cloud this case? My guess is because you have made a decision of guilt and must support your arguement or consider issues such as David Hicks more important and simply use this case in an attempt to bring attention to Hick's plight or worse still just an snide attempt at having a go at the government (not that you would do the latter Chuck).

The article is written with absolute bias and could not be taken seriously.

Corby should not simply roll over so as to protect Indo/Australian relations and has in fact been vocal in asking Aussies not to boycott Bali or Indonesia. However the people of Australia have a choice to make up there own minds and protest in what ever manner they see fit.

If Indonesia (including Bali) wasn't so corrupt do you think such an out pouring of digust would have been vented?

Perhaps there is a greater trust of the judicial process of other countries. Perhaps the majority of Australians believe Hicks got what he deserved.

cheers

debono