HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Bali drugs: Death sentenc...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 06:58 AM

Bali drugs: Death sentence for Briton Lindsay Sandiford

Source: BBC News

A 56-year-old British grandmother has been sentenced to death in Indonesia for drug trafficking.

Lindsay Sandiford was arrested in May last year after Bali police, carrying out a routine customs check, found 4.8kg (10.6lb) of cocaine in the lining of her suitcase.

Sandiford, whose last UK address was in Gloucestershire, said she was coerced into bringing the drugs to the island.

Her lawyers said they were "surprised" at the verdict and would appeal.

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21137649

35 replies, 4398 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 35 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bali drugs: Death sentence for Briton Lindsay Sandiford (Original post)
dipsydoodle Jan 2013 OP
Piazza Riforma Jan 2013 #1
quadrature Jan 2013 #11
Piazza Riforma Jan 2013 #17
dotymed Jan 2013 #2
elias7 Jan 2013 #3
Art_from_Ark Jan 2013 #4
marble falls Jan 2013 #5
JustABozoOnThisBus Jan 2013 #7
karynnj Jan 2013 #8
Art_from_Ark Jan 2013 #9
karynnj Jan 2013 #10
dotymed Jan 2013 #19
cali Jan 2013 #34
marble falls Jan 2013 #6
Tom Ripley Jan 2013 #12
marble falls Jan 2013 #14
Tom Ripley Jan 2013 #32
marble falls Jan 2013 #33
toby jo Jan 2013 #13
marble falls Jan 2013 #15
DisgustipatedinCA Jan 2013 #16
marble falls Jan 2013 #18
dotymed Jan 2013 #21
Threedifferentones Jan 2013 #23
marble falls Jan 2013 #24
dotymed Jan 2013 #22
marble falls Jan 2013 #35
muriel_volestrangler Jan 2013 #27
dotymed Jan 2013 #20
marble falls Jan 2013 #25
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #26
marble falls Jan 2013 #28
Comrade Grumpy Jan 2013 #29
marble falls Jan 2013 #30
Auzziegob Jan 2013 #31

Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:55 AM

1. The belief that executing someone will make your society better

 

is a hard habit to break.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Piazza Riforma (Reply #1)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:37 AM

11. not so. the belief is that the executed person will not

traffic again.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to quadrature (Reply #11)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:08 PM

17. Personally I oppose capital punishment for all crimes

 

so I don't share in your admiration for Indonesia's primitive response to the drug problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 07:59 AM

2. If it was a diplomat or CIA

no problems....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:11 AM

3. Ummm, OK...

I don't get your point. Are you saying that diplomats or CIA agents are typically drug smugglers, but have the privilege of immunity by their station in life, so she is being treated unfairly because she lacks privilege?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias7 (Reply #3)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:15 AM

4. Diplomats are usually granted immunity

The worst they can usually expect if they commit a crime in their host country is expulsion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomatic_immunity

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:40 AM

5. How much of a 'threat' are drug smuggling ambassadors?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #5)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:46 AM

7. No more or less a threat than any drug mule ...

close to zero.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #4)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:24 AM

8. True and the reason is that it protects all countries diplomats from harrasment

in countries where there are tensions between the host and the diplomats. That immunity has been misused at points like when the US has protected non diplomats (example CIA) by labeling them diplomats.

I can't remember many scandals where diplomats were stopped with large amounts of drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to karynnj (Reply #8)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:36 AM

9. Of course, diplomats aren't subject to searches at customs inspections

like average Joes and Janes are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #9)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:20 AM

10. It is insulting that you think that means that they would risk the disgrace

to themselves and their country to carry drugs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elias7 (Reply #3)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:45 AM

19. Yes I am.

The CIA's drug smuggling operations are very well documented. Also, diplomatic courier pouches are not searched. Cocaine (not crack) is pretty much a drug of the affluent. It would not be much of a stretch to imagine that cocaine is brought into America through either of these entities. Our diplomats regularly bring liquor into Islamic countries, where it is illegal. I guess "being treated unfairly" depends on your outlook. I just do not agree with the two sets of laws in our country and in the world.
"W" bragged about using cocaine in the WH while his "daddy" was president.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 04:19 AM

34. then provide links, honey. You seem to think diplomatic immunity shouldn't exist.

Pretty fucking stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #2)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:42 AM

6. As my wife spent 30 years with CIA, I find your situational ethics as troubling as that of any ...

teabagging teapublican teabilly.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 12:42 PM

12. I would find the situational ethics of the CIA even more troubling

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Ripley (Reply #12)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 08:52 PM

14. Ducking your foibles and responsibilities by casting aspersions on others you know nothing about?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #14)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:27 PM

32. I am not casting aspertions on your wife, but the CIA as an insitution has a decidedly...

questionable history. There is ample documentation of the blood and dirt on their hands.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tom Ripley (Reply #32)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 12:38 AM

33. There is ample accusation and precious little to show for it. Have there been turncoats and ....

rogue operators? You bet. Edwin Wilson comes to mind. But the CIA as an organization has always been an implement of policy and answerable to Congress and the President. They do as they are asked. Who was wrong in Viet Nam? The military or the Presidents it served at the pleasure of? One might point out the well documented warnings of the CIA that W ignored about a coming Sept 11 or that the CIA ran black site prisons as ordered by the President. The President did not find out like the rest of us, he authored and authorized it. And the CIA did not endorse 'enhanced' interrogations like water boarding.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #6)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 03:32 PM

13. Drug dealers are scumbags, give "grams" a few years in a shitty prison, she deserves it.

 

The CIA is up to their eyeballs in drug dealing, another bunch of scumbags.

Your wife aside, sir?

Black ops produce some of the most disgusting actions men commit - they've got the eagle smelling like shit. It takes a certain 'ego', & we've got em.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toby jo (Reply #13)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:05 PM

15. Its not the CIA, its everybody willing to use the excuse of "they're worse" for their own irrational

and uncivil behaviors. What do you know of what the CIA has done or not done in service of every single administration that had the CIA? How do you assume who in the CIA did what to whom? What makes you think that the CIA has done more bad than good? Do you think the CIA operates as an autonomous entity with no oversight from anybody? The CIA has the same constraints and oversights as the State Dept, being over seen by Congress and the President. My wife has service to this country the equal of any serviceman with very little of the benefits. As a Viet vet, I believe my opinion has a bit of standing. And I think I might have a little more insight on the topic of the CIA than you may.

Nothing personal, just saying. Have a wonderful life. G*d bless the President, G*d bless the nation, G*d bless all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #15)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 09:32 PM

16. I didn't open this thread expecting to comment about the CIA

But since you brought it up, be aware: your wife works for an organization that has murdered people since its inception and has overthrown democratically elected governments since its inception. Please don't attempt to use the "I have inside information" line regarding the CIA, unless you're ready to spill the beans and watch your wife face some serious trouble. That means you're just like the rest of us, and you only know what's publicly knowable about the CIA. And what's publicly knowable about the CIA is pretty bad. They're murderous fucks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DisgustipatedinCA (Reply #16)

Tue Jan 22, 2013, 10:34 PM

18. What do you know of "murderous fucks"? You know nothing. How dare you make such slanderous and .....

woefully uneducated charges. You don't know a thing about the CIA, so get educated before you further expose your ignorance or at least try to substantiate your charges. ALL CIA employees are murderous fucks? Substantiate that little nugget. I don't think you can. I stand by my words. You stand on your ignorance of the facts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #18)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:55 AM

21. DisgustedinCa

must be a "teabagging teabilly" too...

It must be hard to know so much and have to read these uneducated, common folks, ignorant nuggets

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #18)


Response to Threedifferentones (Reply #23)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:01 AM

24. Don't let the facts interfere with your misconceptions, ace. The CIA did nothing on its own ....

the President gave it its mission. Reagan is the man you need to be mope slapping. By the way - who's responsible for drone attacks? The President or the CIA?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #15)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 09:00 AM

22. Hey Marble...

maybe you should read: CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN, by John Perkins. You may possibly consider a different viewpoint...maybe not...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #22)

Thu Jan 24, 2013, 09:02 AM

35. From Wikipedia:

Controversy and criticism

Columnist Sebastian Mallaby of the Washington Post reacted sharply to Perkins' book: "This man is a frothing conspiracy theorist, a vainglorious peddler of nonsense, and yet his book, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, is a runaway bestseller." Mallaby, who spent 13 years writing for the London Economist and wrote a critically well-received biography of World Bank chief James Wolfensohn, holds that Perkins' conception of international finance is "largely a dream" and that his "basic contentions are flat wrong." For instance he points out that Indonesia reduced its infant mortality and illiteracy rates by two-thirds after economists persuaded its leaders to borrow money in 1970. He also disputes Perkins' claim that 51 of the top 100 world economies belong to companies. A value-added comparison done by the UN, he says, shows the number to be 29. (The 51 of 100 data comes from an Institute for Policy Studies Dec 2000 Report on the Top 200 corporations; using 2010 data from the CIA's World Factbook and Fortune Global 500 the current ratio is 114 corporations in the top 200 global economies.)

Other sources, including articles in the New York Times and Boston Magazine as well as a press release issued by the United States Department of State, have referred to a lack of documentary or testimonial evidence to corroborate the claim that the NSA was involved in his hiring to Chas T. Main. In addition, the author of the State Department release states that the NSA "is a cryptological (codemaking and codebreaking) organization, not an economic organization" and that its missions do not involve "anything remotely resembling placing economists at private companies in order to increase the debt of foreign countries." Economic historian Niall Ferguson writes in his book The Ascent of Money that Perkins's contention that the leaders of Ecuador (President Jaime Roldós Aguilera) and Panama (General Omar Torrijos) were assassinated by US agents for opposing the interests of the owners of their countries' foreign debt "seems a little odd" in light of the fact that in the 1970s the amount of money that the US had lent to Ecuador and Panama accounted for less than 0.4% of the total US grants and loans, while in 1990 the exports from the US to those countries accounted for approximately 0.4% of the total US exports (approximately $8 billion). According to Ferguson, those "do not seem like figures worth killing for."

The World Bank has certainly loaded 3rd world country with disastrous debt that has destabilized these countries to large part. I argue that these were unintended consequences that were exploited by private equity firms and commodities speculators and not the planned strategies of the NSA, let alone the CIA. And it they had been planned, the President and Congress would have authored it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to toby jo (Reply #13)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:14 PM

27. You think the death penalty for drug smuggling is OK?

Wow. Where did you pick up that far right wing view? What other non-violent offences do you think we should kill people for?

You do remember you're posting on a liberal site, don't you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #6)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 08:49 AM

20. Really? Maybe you should google CIA drug smuggling.

I have often been called a socialist but this is the first time I have been referred to as a "teabagging teabilly."

Have a great day....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dotymed (Reply #20)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:04 AM

25. Who smuggles in your drugs? Maybe you'd like to point out sources other than conspiracy nuts. Show..

some real evidence of your claim, like main stream media or maybe a court case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #25)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:01 PM

26. CIA involvement in drug smuggling has been well-documented.

You could start with Alfred McCoy's "The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia" on the CIA's role in transporting opium for its hill tribe allies during the Vietnam War.

You could also look at Sen. Kerry's hearings for the role the CIA played in Iran-Contra drug smuggling.

And then there was the CIA alliance with French intelligence and the Marseille mob to break the back of Communist unions in the port city. This was the French Connection.

This stuff is not conspiracy theory, or even particularly controversial. And it makes sense in a way. Both intelligence agencies and illegal drug trafficking organizations are amoral, clandestine operations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #26)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 01:32 PM

28. No proof, lots of conjecture. Thankyou, however, for your civil responses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marble falls (Reply #28)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 02:38 PM

29. The proof is out there. You just have to read it.

It even goes back before the CIA even existed. During World War II, the OSS sprung mobster Lucky Luciano from prison to go to Sicily and enlist the mob on the side of the Allies. Yeah, they were trafficking heroin. That was the root of the alliance that later morphed into the French Connection.

I mentioned McCoy's book above. It's considered the seminal work on the topic.

Now, your wife, I'm sure, is a nice lady. I bet she worked as an analyst, not a spook. I don't have a problem with intelligence collection and analysis; it's the whole subversion and secret armies thang that bothers me about the CIA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Comrade Grumpy (Reply #29)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 10:36 PM

30. No doubt, spycraft has been around for a long time. My personal feeling about Luciano ...

is he reached out to the gov't explaining that he had control of the ports and docks and was in a good position to not only watch for saboteurs but also the muscle required to do something about it and he also had some influence on Mafia partisans in Italy that could help deal with extremely tough German defense. And he was deported. A good deal, I'd say.

Situations may cause some questionable allies. I think WWII qualifies a situation that called for the unique abilities of some questionable sorts - Mao, Stalin, the Shah's father comes to mind. And some of these other sorts had access to Heroin and the marketing of it. But I also don't think the OSS or CIA had any much to do with it other than say in Afghanistan we overlooked the Northern Alliance funding itself with opium. We overlook Karzai's drug dealing brother, right now. Is that the CIA? Or is that the official policy at least defacto policy of the US. CIA is not a policy organization. It is not autonomous. It is an instrument of the gov't. It doesn't set policy, it is an instrument of policy.

My wife is a nice lady. I like her lots. But CIA subverts nothing it isn't ordered to subvert. And a lot of the secret armies are made up of active duty personnel.

Frankly the mercenary armies we call "contractors" bother me a lot more. Why is it I wonder after Congress went through Iran/Contra and people were put in jail and disgraced, what they only reported for financing was selling missile parts to Iran to raise money for the Contras. $10M was raised in what I believe was one of the few instances where the US sold arms at a profit for itself. To put that $10M into perspective, the British, the French and the Russians sold $1.5 billion in arms at the same time. We won't discuss the assassinations the Sandanistas committed while coming into power or the fact that when the Sananistas allowed free elections, they were voted out. Thats not suppositions, that's facts.

When dealing with a lot of the accusations made against Langley, I try to apply Ocham's razor. Blaming the CIA for drug use or availability of drugs in the US as a reality or the result of rogue operations to fund other operations just as rogue just doesn't make the cut.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Original post)

Wed Jan 23, 2013, 11:01 PM

31. Bali drugs: Death sentence for Briton Lindsay Sandiford

 

Why did these blokes target her son and make her try to smuggle the dope

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread