Australian woman gets 20 years for pot

[river2]

The Australian government is offering to send a team of lawyers to help Schapelle Corby fight her 20-year prison sentence for drug smuggling in Indonesia.

The 27-year-old Australian beautician's fate was sealed Friday, when an Indonesian court found her guilty of smuggling over 4 kilograms (nine pounds of marijuana) into Bali. Her enraged mother screamed, "Our government will bring you home."

A recent survey among Australians found 90 percent believed Corby to be innocent.

Even actor Russell Crowe has jumped in, asking how his government could let Corby "rot away in a foreign prison."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/05/27/corby.appeal/

This is a big case in Australia. The judge wouldn't let the Defense introduce key evidence. And the police mishandled the evidence. Not to mention that the Indonesian govt. is totalitarian and the courts are corrupt.

She didn't get a fair trial.

The evidence was sketchy, at best. There have baggage handlers that use bags to smuggle drugs around Australia - known as 'ramp rats'. Corby had no criminal record.

The Australians kicked in mucho dinero to Indonesia to help with the tsunami effort.

The Bali Bomber got just under three years for killing 88.

Many Australians say they will by boycotting Bali from here on out. Others say they don't want to hurt the local people depenent on tourism.

This story isn't over yet. An appeal is happening. The prosecution will argue that the sentence is not severe enough.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010870.html

[Quakerfriend]

1. It was so sad to see some of the courtroom footage on TV!

I'm praying that she will see turn in her fortune.

It certainly deters me from traveling to Bali as a tourist!

[river2]

3. Crooks and Liars has video of it

It's pretty pretty amazing scene.

[lenidog]

2. I heard that it is quite easy in the Indonesian legal system to

actually get a worse sentence if you fail your appeal.

[river2]

5. It's quite possible

but 20 yrs. is basically a life sentence, and quite possibly a death sentence in those prisons.

[lenidog]

6. I heard something that I thought was slightly disturbing in the aftermath

of the verdict. They were already talking about ways to ge ther out of jail and one of those was prisoner exchange. Where they would hand over 47 Indonesians for 14 Australians. Now they basically said that most of the Australians would go free if it happened. What about the Indonesians? Will Indonesia set them free or are they going to end up in the same type of jail which Corby is supposedly not going to survive.

[river2]

8. I have no idea

but the Indonesian prisoners could get lawyers to fight their extradition, if they didn't want to go - Australia has due process.

[lenidog]

10. I would hope so

because if they would be going to an Indonesian jail I would think it would be akin to saying that the Australians distaste of the Indonesian penal system only applies when Australians aren't involved.

[river2]

13. Perhaps

some would rather go back to Indonesia - I know that bribery is a factor in that country, family connections, etc...maybe they could actually get a better deal there via those sorts of things...

[lenidog]

15. There is a possibilty of that and I could see them wanting to go then

[Jack_DeLeon]

14. why shouldnt it?

Why wouldnt any citizen of any nation want to get rid of foreign criminals in exchange for freeing citizens of thier own country?

[lenidog]

16. If you supposedly your country cares about human rights then you

should have a problem with taking prisoners from your jails that respect human rights and sending them to jails that do not and possibly cause the death of said prisoners.

[Jack_DeLeon]

28. ROFL...

if you think countries care about human rights.

That being said if countries do care about human rights they usually care about the rights of thier own citizens first.

[anakie]

37. in any prisoner exchange treaty

that, by the way is yet to be negotiated let alone signed off, those little twerps Downer and Ruddock have said that any prisoners exchanged in such a deal will have to serve out there full sentence in an Australian prison; most likely at Australian taxpayer expense.

Guilty or not if she is extradited to Australia she will be in gaol for a long time.

[Prodemsouth]

4. Prisoner Cell Block H- It ain't

n/t

[lenidog]

7. BTW Welcome to DU

:o :hi:

[river2]

18. thanks

good to be here...

[amazona]

9. yeah the australians are up in arms and i'm not sure why

Corby had 9 pounds of marijuana in the bag which she opened herself in front of four witnesses at Indonesian customs. She was caught red-headed and really had no defense.

At the same time, some baggage handlers in Australia were being investigated for putting cocaine from South America into people's luggage to move it around more easily in Australia. Her defense leaped on this and blamed the marijuana on these baggage handlers. This is almost worse than no defense at all, since it is completely unclear why some cocaine smugglers moving their product around Australia would have placed nine pounds of marijuana in a bag going to Bali. How did they plan to retrieve it unless Corby was in on it? As far as I can tell, the defense failed to prove anything at all except that they were desperate.

The International Herald Tribune said that many Australians and other foreigners have been jailed or even executed for drug crimes in Indonesia without any great media concern, but that this case attracted attention because the accused was young, beautiful, and female, and the ignored cases involved scruffy males. Bread and circuses, as far as I can see. She would have likely received a similar sentence if caught smuggling that quantity into the United States. I'm told that penalties for smuggling marijuana in Australia and New Zealand are relatively light, but if someone is planning a crime for profit, it is their responsibility to make sure that the risk/reward ratio is a reasonable one. As they say, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

The same people telling me they will not visit Bali now are also saying that they won't visit the United States for various silly reasons. Well and good. But don't call yourself an adventure traveler if every exaggerated news story is going to cause you to strike another country off your visitor's list!

[river2]

11. What they do

is move it around australia - one handler puts it in at point A, another picks it up at point B. If it was just around Australia, which happens, a mix up could have occurred and it was never taken out.

It is also possible it was meant for Bali and was never taken out.

It is doubtful that someone aware of the risks, with so much to lose, would risk smuggleing pot into Bali where it grows everywhere and is very, very cheap. It would be a losing deal, and the risks are incredibly high.

The police say she was 'nervous', etc...and yeah I'm sure the Indonesian police would never lie, especially in a high profile case the govt. wants to win. Sure.

And the sentence here in the States would not be twenty years, it would be a year or two at the most. first time offender, and all - not to mention you'd get a shot at a fair trial.

[amazona]

21. 9 POUNDS???? Definitely 20 years!

I'm sorry, I never heard of anyone getting off with a "year or two" in the United States for getting convicted of smuggling 9 pounds of product! Of course it varies from state to state, but there are people in prison for 25 to life in Texas and New York for trivial quantities by comparison.

[river2]

22. that's not correct

"Aaron, 4 kilos of marijuana carries 10 to 16 months in the U.S. federal system. Not a possible sentence of death by firing squad or life in prison as it does in Indonesia."

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/010870.html#010870

This was in the comments section of Talkleft, written by the operator of Talkleft, a criminal defense attorey in Colorado. She was responding to someone who said something similar to you...

[amazona]

26. certainly it's correct

Don't make me laugh. 10 to 16 months would be for possession in my state (Louisiana). 9 pounds -- the weight alone is evidence of conspiracy and distribution charges. Good Lord, I'm glad they are so enlightened in Colorado, but that is simply not the real world for most of us.

[river2]

27. That's federal law

that she's talking about...

which is usually operative in smuggling cases, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't think anyone would get twenty years in any state for MJ. Not on a first conviction, not with a clean record, and not on a case where the evidence was muddied with significant, if not reasonable, doubt.

[crimson333]

41. Nate Newton got caught with 213 lbs in Louisiana

and spent a little over two years in jail

[SemperEadem]

52. but that's in the US, not Indonesia

one has to remember where one is. She wasn't caught smuggling in Oregon.

Indonesia doesn't have to tow to our or Australia's drug laws. They're a sovereign country allowed to make their laws.

If this was over a joint, then yeah, I'd be upset for the woman. But 9 pounds is a lot of weed, s0n--that's trafficking amount in the eyes of law enforcement in those countries. I'm sure she's old enough to know the difference in weight between a couple of grams and 9 pounds.

[crimson333]

44. unless your famous

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/wires/05/14/2020.ap.fbn.cowboys.newton.0252/

[slay]

53. 20 Years for a freakin plant?!?! People have gone insane!

I don't care if it was 9 pounds or 90 pounds - it's just weed! You know, marijuana, the "drug" everyone knows should be legal but isn't. Most people know someone who has smoked weed in their lifetime. This is another of the famous "sins" that politicians, especially republican, love to go after. If it's fun - ban it! No more sex, drugs, or rock and roll for you!

It should be legal, but since it's not, I feel that we have to support the most minor sentences possible. 20 years is not only not fair, it is sick, cruel, and unusual punishment. 20 years is not used as punishment, it's used as an example of what the big bad government will do to you if you don't fall in line. Sickening.

[Jack_DeLeon]

12. yeah that lady is obviously a dangerous criminal who got what she deserved

[expatriate]

23. If she knew there was a bag of pot the size

of a sofa cushion in her bag (it weighed ten pounds), why would she have willingly opened it in front of customs officials? Her dismay occurred after she opened the bag and saw it.

Wouldn't you have tried to conceal something like that? This woman travels to Bali often, because her sister lives there. She knows the drill. She knows the customs officials search bags. The pot was readily visible, there was no attempt to conceal it. Some drug smuggler.

I agree that this case has recieved a lot of media coverage as opposed to those of other Australians who have been convicted of drug smuggling overseas, and yes, it's because she's attractive and female. There has also been information bruited about by the media which has been harmful - that this woman's father had a pot possession conviction before she was ever even conceived, etc - as if that immediately means that she must be guilty. The media coverage hasn't helped her a bit. It's been a circus, and the hanging judge (over 500 drug smuggling convictions to his name; he has never acquitted anyone brought before him on drug charges)has repeatedly stated that the publicity was damaging her case. You do not get the Western ideal of a fair trial in Indonesia, period.

As far considering herself an "adventure traveler" - she was going to visit her sister. She'd been to Bali many times before. Bali really isn't considered that exotic by Australians - it's nearby, it's a cheap vacation.

Frankly, I travelled to the USA after the Patriot Act was put into place. I didn't have much trouble, but my Australian husband, who is of British/Gypsy heritage and who appears superficially to be of Middle Eastern extraction, was not only wanded, but also patted down, searched, researched, questioned, required to move quite a bit of his clothing and hassled every single time he got on an airplane in the USA - and we got on seven different planes during our stay. Now, that was scary. And the nasty attitude of those who singled him out due to his appearance and their obvious disappointment when they didn't find he had bombs in his shoes or a pistol in his pants has really made me rethink returning to my native land, particularly now that people who are suspected of possibly being terrorists (including 16 year old kids writing essays for school) can be locked up with no due process. Not until things change a lot.

If they ever do.

[amazona]

31. oh this is just silly

a sofa cushion in her bag (it weighed ten pounds), why would she have willingly opened it in front of customs officials?

Do you travel? With a name like expatriate, it seems that you would be aware that you are not allowed to refuse a search of your bags at the airport. The testimony given by the customs official and Indonesians witnesses made it clear that she did not willingly open the bag. She tried to get away with just unzipping a little side zipper. Like that's going to work.

I didn't have much trouble, but my Australian husband, who is of British/Gypsy heritage and who appears superficially to be of Middle Eastern extraction, was not only wanded, but also patted down, searched, researched, questioned, required to move quite a bit of his clothing and hassled every single time he got on an airplane in the USA - and we got on seven different planes during our stay. Now, that was scary.

I've been wanded, searched, questioned, remove clothing, etc. also and I am not a bit Middle Eastern looking. It happens to everyone who flies. I often fly out of New Orleans. Everyone -- every ONE -- no matter their color or creed must now remove their shoes and outer jackets, loose blouses, etc. every time to go through security. I feel sorry for the security people, frankly. If they search everyone, then there is an outcry because the security line backs up and people are up in arms about having to remove their shoes, etc. Yet they know if they mess up, then an airplane is going to get blown up or a skyline re-arranged.

I don't consider it being "hassled," I consider it doing a proper job of securing the airplane. Getting blown up spoils my whole day a lot more than being patted down by a harried security guard. And if you are pleasant to them, they will be pleasant to you or at least businesslike. They are not looking for British/Australian gypsies to haul away to our already over-filled prison system, I assure you.

I just don't think we do ourselves any good by getting ourselves all worked up in a frenzy. There is enough real stuff to get stressed about. I expect to be properly searched, and I expect others on the plane with me to be properly searched. Fair is fair. Don't ask me to put my life in your hands based on trust. I'm sure your husband is a wonderful man, but I don't know him, and he doesn't know me, and if we're on a public airliner together, we should all have the knowledge that ALL have been properly and competently searched.

[expatriate]

40. "All" were not being searched.

Seven planes in 21 days, and "all" passengers were not being searched that thoroughly. Mainly males. Males with dark hair and eyes and swarthy skin. Blonde women were not being searched the way my husband was. Neither were kids or old folks - or most "white" men. And no-one in those lines (and I had ample opportunity to stand there observing and waiting while these searches of my husband went on and on and on) was subjected to the scrutiny that he was.

You think being asked to remove a "loose blouse" during a security check in a line in an airport is reasonable? Public disrobing is now okay? Women are supposed to strip down to their underwear?

What I find more disturbing than the searches is the acceptance of them in the name of "safety". If a terrorist really wanted to blow a plane out of the sky, there are plastique explosives that can be made to look like anything, and which can fit anywhere. It is by making the US public afraid that we've got Bush back in office again - by pulling the "safety" string to the point where people are willing to allow incredible invasion of their privacy.

Re: Schapelle Corby - there are two versions of the incident at the airport where she opened or was asked to open her bag - hers and the Indonesian civil servants'. Nothing is on film or on tape. Nothing was fingerprinted. It's her word against theirs - and they're civil servants, just like the judge who is so proud of never acquitting a single person who has been brought before him on drug charges. The Indonesian government makes a big deal of being tough on drug smugglers, particularly those people accused of smuggling drugs who are not Indonesian citizens - so which side does the Indonesian civil servant know his bread is buttered on? The official who questioned her does not have a good command of English, and no interpreter was provided. Considering Indonesia's track record for corruption, and the fact that the investigation of the incident was poorly done, the only evidence was not fingerprinted and was repeatedly handled and opened by the customs officials, I tend question the Indonesian side of the story. I don't necessarily agree with the Australians who are now demanding the return of charitable contributions made to Indonesia, or who are calling for boycotts of travel to Bali, but I think that people should be aware that when things go wrong in another country, you can't expect the legal process you would get at home - and in Indonesia, you're very unlikely to receive what anyone in the US or Australia would consider a fair trial.

[noiretextatique]

32. the americans would be the same way

if she was white, young, and female. something about that combo makes some folks go sappy.
i tend to lean more towards your point of view...that she probably had the stash, but it's pretty clear she didn't get a fair trial.
i'm not sure how the bag handlers angle comes to play in her case, but it was something that should have been investigated.
i hear there was som anti-indonesian feelings that existed before this case in australia...somehow, that doesn't surprise me.

[river2]

33. Don't forget the fair trial aspect of it

The defense was not allowed to present their case. The police lost the bag for fingerprinting, and they did not allow the defense to test the mj to determine its origin. I'm not an expert on this case but these are some points I've read about his case.

In such a case it's entirely appropriate for the Australian people and the AU government to fight for her. That's what governments do - try and protect their citizens, even if they are in foreign lands, they do what they can.

Don't diss Russell Crowe.

[Generator]

36. Ya man, leave the Crowe man alone!

So that got me to laugh.

Indonesia is a fascist country with fascist laws. Nah..I won't be traveling there..I have so many other places to go first. I'm having hard enough time with the b.s. drug laws in this country. By the way-the world is insane. Everyday..but I look for the laughs because it really is fucking nuts on this planet.

[river2]

49. Glad that got ya to laugh!

Don't diss the Crowe!

[river2]

48. delete

Don't diss da Crowe!

[bicentennial_baby]

17. The 3 primary Bali bombers (plural)

were sentenced to death, and another got life. Several other lesser players got reduced sentences. The guy who got 3 years was not one of the bombers, he was their spiritual leader, or something like that.

[expatriate]

19. I live in Australia and have followed this case very closely

and I have to say that at this point, I wouldn't go anywhere near Bali or any other part of Indonesia.

People don't realize that when you are in another nation, you are subject to their laws, not the laws of your own country. The court system in Indonesia is very different from those of the US and Australia, and even though they give lip service to presuming that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty, they actually assume that everyone is guilty and has to prove their innocence.

The judge in this case has heard over 500 drug smuggling cases and boasts that he has ruled that every single defendant in those cases was guilty, regardless of evidence presented. At one point during Ms. Corby's trial, he asked an expert witness for her defense to "look into her eyes" and tell him whether she was innocent or guilty. The witness was flabbergasted, and couldn't believe that a judge in the 21st century believed that you could determine guilt or innocence by looking at someone's eyes.

That's the mindset of the legal system in Indonesia. During the trial I literally expected the judge to demand that Ms. Corby be given a trial by dunking to see if she was guilty, like the witch trials hundreds of years ago. Evidence that might have thrown serious doubt on her assumed guilt was simply ignored by the Indonesian courts, even when an incident occurred at Sydney International Airport during her trial, where a baggage handler was caught on camera going through a passenger's luggage after the passenger had checked in, extracting a fursuit costume camel head and then parading around the tarmac outside, in sight of passengers and employees, wearing the damn thing. The Indonesian court refused to accept that and other evidence to the fact that Australian baggage handlers not only go through passenger luggage, but also use passenger luggage to mule drugs between towns in Australia.

Worst of all, the Indonesian court refused to accept evidence that marijuana sells for less in Bali than it would on the streets in Australia, and that the marijuana found in Ms. Corby's luggage was more than four kilos. This was an amount that she never could have paid for - she is repeatedly referred to as a "beautician" or "beauty student" in the press because she took some classes in beauty therapy, but in truth, she works in her parents' fish and chips shop - not exactly a lucrative post. It's doubtful she would have the more than hundred thousand dollars to plunk down for that sofa pillow sized bag of pot - and then, in Bali, she would have sold it for a loss? Why would anyone do that?

The luggage wasn't weighed coming into the Indonesian airport, the security tapes of the bag being searched in Australia prior to Ms. Corby boarding the plane were lost due to malfunctioning equipment, and the only evidence really accepted by the Indonesian court was the word of a customs official who didn't speak much English and who claimed that Ms. Corby told him the marijuana was hers - which Ms. Corby and her travelling companions vehemently denied.

The Indonesian judge was determined that this woman was going to be found guilty no matter what evidence was presented or who testified in her behalf. And yes, her sentence could be lengthened, or even made into a death sentence if she loses her appeals. There is very little the Australian government can do to help her other than providing her with lawyers. Those scenes in movies where someone gets into trouble in a foreign country and the diplomat from their home land turns up, flashes some ID and all is suddenly okay, are absolutely mythological.

In reality, if you get into trouble in a country other than your own, you'll be at the mercy of their justice system, no matter how archaic it may be. A judge might believe that he can just look at your eyes and decide whether you're guilty or not - or he may have a track record of convicting people in a certain kind of case, and has no intention of breaking his record.

After this incident, I'm going to be very careful where I decide to travel - and considering the Patriot Act, that will include the USA.

[river2]

20. Excellent summary of the situation...

You're very right, when in a foreign country, you are at their mercy to a great extent.

[amazona]

24. well then, eyes roll, don't travel

In the U.S. we are told the same scare stories about Mexico, which also has a system where you are guilty until proven innnocent. There are ninnies who won't travel to Mexico, our nearest neighbor, because they are convinced the Mexican police have nothing better to do than arrest American travelers on invented charges. And now I'm encountering British and Australian travelers who have been filled with scare stories about traveling to that scary, violent place...the United States. Apparently Homeland Security has nothing better to do than handcuff British citizens to a chair and then ship them off to Cuba. I mean, come on? Is this really so likely to happen if you simply refrain from using and transporting illegal drugs?

There are corrupt officials everywhere, but in the end, you have to be reasonable. It is not likely that someone is going to put valuable drugs or currency in someone else's baggage and let it go flying off to where-the-eff-ever. Logic, people.

A lot of the anti-Bali flames have been fanned by "talk back" radio, apparently. We're all supposed to stop traveling and get back to hating and fearing what we don't know. :eyes:

To play devil's advocate in regard to Corby: Marijuana can vary greatly in quality. I don't partake and can't be the judge of such things, but I'm told that the quality of good Australian product puts it head and shoulders above the Balinese ditchweed. I was also told that nervous foreigners prefer to buy from other foreigners, in case a local drug dealer was really there to entrap them. In other words, the claim that Corby would lose money by importing marijuana into Bali from Australia is provably untrue, so the judges rightly dismissed it even if the court of public opinion prefers to believe the pretty girl.

[expatriate]

29. I'm a dual national, American native and Australian by naturalization.

I travelled to America after 9/11. As mentioned in my post above, my Australian born, sixth generation husband, has a Middle Eastern appearance, though he is of British/Gypsy heritage.

Believe me, after our experiences in American airports, where he was singled out, questioned, wanded, patted down, searched, required to remove a lot more of his clothing than his shoes (and in full sight of other boarding passengers), taken to other rooms for questioning, subjected to complete searches of his carryon luggage, at one point had someone take his passport and hold onto it for a very long time while they went into other rooms with it and showed it to this one and that was, and was generally treated like a criminal, I'm not in any hurry to return to the good ol' benevolent USA.

This is a man who has never had a criminal conviction or even a traffic ticket in his life. He does not smuggle drugs. He was singled out for one reason - his appearance. He was, frankly, mistreated. The paranoia and negativity we encountered was incredible, and the knowledge that, under the Patriot Act, he could have been indefinitely detained on no more than paranoia and suspicion, is enough for me to really rethink returning to the USA any time soon.

Everyone's experience is not necessarily so cut and dried as yours seems to be.

[amazona]

34. no i actually had about the same experience

I'm going to guess that his passport "alerted" because he had a similar or same name to someone on a list. I did have this happen before. I don't call it being mistreated. One low level person can't take it on themselves to look at you and say, oh I can tell just by looking at you that you must be one of the good guys even though your name is on that list. So it's off the secondary while it gets straightened out. It seems to me that he wasn't so much treated like a criminal as he was treated exactly like everyone else who has a tag on their passport and has to be given a double-check. I don't understand what else you expect security to do. They have to check these things out. Unfortunately, a great many people have the same or similar names as the criminal element, so it is inevitable that sometimes there are going to be mix-ups that take time to check out. I'd say the incident I described took about 45 minutes to clear up? I don't know what "a very long time" is so I can't say how it compares to your husband's experience of having his passport checked out. But would you prefer a world where the only people who could travel were people who had been given security clearances in advance and the rich who could afford their own private aircraft?

What alternative do you suggest to thorough screening?

If people weren't being very visibly screened and searched, I can assure you that the copycats would be blowing up and diverting airplanes every week. All you have to do is look at the skyjacking craze of the early 70s to see what happens. All the extortionates and crazies would be out in force. Al Qaeda would never have to lift another finger or spend another penny to have a complete and total disruption of air service.

People gotta be screened and searched. In every country. Not just the U.S. Not just Indonesia. In every country. Once I was taken aside and questioned and patted down in the freaking Netherlands, for pity's sake. What is the use of getting upset about it?

You just can't make some people happy. They're afraid to fly because hijackers get on planes and divert them or blow them up. Then they're afraid to fly because screeners are actually trying to screen and prevent some of these bombs, guns, and knives from getting onboard. It's a no-win for security. They catch hell no matter what they do.

[expatriate]

45. Well, his name is almost as common as "John Smith"

Not quite as much, but close. First name is among the most common in the world, last name is the same as a common American car. There could be a security tag on that name.

Security screening is one thing. Singling people out is another. I'm very familiar with the NO airport, having lived in Louisiana for 28 years, and went through there in the winter of 2003-2004 - I didn't see any of the sort of stringent screening you're describing, except for the Mister. Lots of people just walked through the electronic gate, picked up the belongings they had placed in the little tray, and went on their merry way. One other man, with black hair and dark eyes, was wanded. No-one else was patted down or questioned. Maybe things have changed at Louis Armstrong since, but that's my experience.

In five airports, he was specifically asked if he was Middle Eastern and in three he was asked if the name on his passport was his real name. Additionally, he was asked for his passport on domestic flights - something that is not required at all. Something was triggering suspicion in these authorities to do that, and the only thing could have been his appearance.

In the incident I mentioned, his passport was held for three hours. We missed the plane. When we asked, when the passport was returned, what the problem had been, we were told to be quiet or we'd be sorry and that there were laws to keep people from causing trouble. This was in Detroit. We were never given a reason why he was detained and his passport held for three hours.

People don't remember that the 9/11 hijackers got on those planes through Logan Airport, which had, at the time, and still has, one of the worst records for security screening and for security in general. Screening was cusory, particularly during the time that the hijackers chose to fly. They chose that time on purpose, knowing that it would be easy to get weapons onto those planes. Worse, even if the proper procedures were followed, the "box cutters" they carried would have been permitted on the planes.

I believe that airport security was very lax in the US prior to 9/11. I flew regularly (at least nine to ten times per year) while I lived in the US, and the things that people were once allowed to do are unthinkable now - you could basically go anywhere in an airport. But I must say that I consider a lot of what is going on now overkill - and the overkill was certainly not being applied to everyone on the days when I flew in the winter of 2003-2004. People of certain ethnicities were obviously being targeted for closer scrutiny, and all I could think was that sooner or later, a terrorist organization is going to find a way to get something onto a plane on one of those people who were just allowed to toddle through the electronic gate and go their merry way. Or more likely in baggage, because there is no way to physically search each and every piece of luggage that is going onto an airliner.

[amazona]

50. that's it, ding, right on the nose -- common names are EFFED

If you have one of those names that "huh, sounds like it could be an alias," you just gotta allow more time at the airport. We were dinged at Houston, but they are very good at clearing dinged passports. I'm surprised at DTW, fly through there all the time and have never gotten dinged on the passport there so can't say what the difference is. Maybe they feel that CDG and AMS already did quite enough digging and searching -- good chance you flew NWA or KLM (?) since you went through DTW -- and in my experience the European partners are quite aggressive in regard to searching, questioning, and out and out interrogating. Sheesh. It could get annoying but I just take it as being part of the game. I'll say this -- I agree that there is FISHING going on -- they are supposed to be just checking for terrorists but I think IAH (Houston) at the very least is also using security issues as an excuse to check for drug criminals. Won't go into why I think so. They were quite polite and cordial though while clearing the passport. They knew they had the wrong person but had to go through the motions.

As far as MSY (New Orleans) -- I've flown through there 6 times in 2005 so far and EVERYONE has to remove their shoes and I wear a sports bra because I have been asked -- not every time, but frequently enough -- to remove all "outer" clothing. And I'm a blonde. So I really don't think it is skin color. I'm sure you must have noticed that New Orleans is a black city, and the screeners are often mostly if not all black depending on what hour and terminal you are clearing.

If they don't physically search all checked luggage, they sure give it the old college try. I think I've gotten a TSA notice every single time in every single bag, although I've had other people tell me that they do get bags without TSA notices from checked luggages. Don't know what to tell you. I've heard a number of theories. I tend to believe that, since I travel a LOT, they wonder what the heck I am doing and feel obliged to check it out. Another theory I was given is that TSA is told to give an extra check to people who are "too" cooperative, and I tend to be a smiley type person who just wants to go along to get along and get through security smoothly. Who knows.

EVERYONE in New Orleans now has to take off shoes and be secondaried. (INdeed, MSY has been nominated for the "shoe carnival" club at Flyertalk.com) EVERYONE has to pull out their laptop or be secondaried -- just happened to a absent-minded friend of mine, again, he's of Italian heritage, so it wasn't based on race. EVERYONE has to pull off any clothes that are not body skimming if they think the clothes might be concealing. I guess now you mention it, 2005 is stricter than 2003, but I'm not sure why. I think maybe the Russian incident, where two planes were brought down in one day, caused them to remember that females, etc. must be checked. Not just the guys who might or might not look Middle Eastern. But I swear it really is being applied to everyone. You should have seen the lines backed up at spring break!

Again I would ask, what is the alternative? If you don't screen, the copycats and extortionists will play havoc with air travel. We had a plane in 1972 where the hijackers threatened to fly it into a nuclear power plant if they were not paid several million dollars. And we all know about all the flights of that era diverted to Cuba by the mentally ill. It is unfortunate, but you cannot assume that only Middle Eastern males will be attention-seeking in this way. Anyone could be a nutcase. The professionals might yet find a way past the screeners, but we can stop the nutbags. Sure, I wish I could show up at the airport five minutes before time to hop on the plane and just go but this is not the real world.

[ovidsen]

35. I beg to differ

"I'm told that the quality of good Australian product puts it head and shoulders above the Balinese ditchweed."

Not only is Bali pot better, but it's MUCH cheaper. It makes no sense to smuggle marijuana into Bali. It'd be like smuggling cocaine into Colombia. I believe this woman was either set up, or the victim of a stupid mistake by a domestic (Australian) drug ring.

[amazona]

38. yeah I'm not qualified to comment on who has better pot!

I was just repeating one of the arguments I was given.

However, the argument that she must be innocent because she could not have made a profit doesn't make much sense to me. If there was no profit to be made by transporting the drugs to Bali, then the professionals who supposedly put the drugs in the bag might be expected to know this. Again I'm just not seeing where it would make sense to allow valuable property to go flying off overseas in other people's luggage. Someone said the drugs were worth $100,000(!). Seriously, has anyone ever stuffed 100 grand in YOUR luggage? Don't think so.

To an American, who gets little information about the story, it is unclear that these wicked baggage handlers even exist. Has anyone ever actually been convicted of smuggling cocaine in luggage? All I heard was that the possibility was being investigated. And I heard nothing about any pot being smuggled in luggage, just the cocaine.

I agree that Corby could have been set up. Sure. But she must have one heck of an enemy for this person to invest nine POUNDS into the project. A couple of joints would have been sufficient to cause her problems at much lower cost to the revenge-seeker.

The preponderance of evidence suggests that if someone is caught red-handed, then they are going to cry and deny, but it doesn't make their story especially believable. What jury, in what country, would have aquitted her based on the evidence given? I think the defense attorney would have been laughed out of a U.S. courtroom, I honestly do. Nine pounds is just too big of an investment to make it plausible that it was planted.

[ovidsen]

39. You're probably right

that Corby wasn't "set up". As you say, a couple of joints would have been enough to bust her. Why write off 9 pounds?

But I don't see any motivation for smuggling pot into Bali. No profit, that's for sure. To me, a cabal of "wicked baggage handlers"; a group using domestic flights to transport contraband, accidentally stuffing the pot into the wrong checked luggage seems more plausible. Please note that I didn't say the "wicked baggage handlers" were trying to smuggle stuff into Bali. Corby's supporters say she changed planes in Sydney. Somebody trying to ship pot to, say, Perth, could have stuffed the wrong bag.

I find it hard to believe that someone would risk death by trying to smuggle into Bali stuff that a) is lots cheaper there, and b) grows like a weed there. Then again, maybe she's nuts. I don't know.

[expatriate]

43. There is a situation with baggage handlers "muling"

drugs between Australian cities which is being investigated, the most recent case being the one you mention, where a cocaine smuggling ring was involved. Unfortunately, much information about this muling is anecdotal, because the various airlines and airport administration have been fiercely denying that such a thing could happen for years - in spite of the fact that there are literally thousands of complaints logged with airlines and with the airports that things have been removed from luggage, that luggage has been found opened after it was checked in, that objects not belonging to the owner of luggage have been found in suitcases. People have tried to come forward to state that they have found bags of marijuana and cocaine in their luggage, but the stories tend to disappear from the media after a day or so.

There have also been some ex-airline and ex-airport employees who have made statements that this sort of drug muling is going on - that drugs are put into passenger suitcases after check-in and then are removed when the plan arrives in another city. This is the possibility that was raised by Schapelle Corby's defense lawyers - that the marijuana was placed in her bag in Brisbane and was to be removed in Sydney - and the connection was not made.

At present, there is only one case pending regarding this kind of drug smuggling, and that is the cocaine case you mention. To date, it has not gone to trial. The other stories are, unfortunately for Ms Corby, anecdotal - but the fact that there are so many of them, that people are willing to go on the record about the fact that their suitcases have been rifled, stolen from and had object put into them, is telling. It is a situation that needs to be looked into, certainly.

There was a well-publicized incident a few weeks back of a Qantas employee removing a fursuit camel head from a suitcase and being driven around the airport tarmac in a baggage trolley while wearing it, belying Qantas' firm denial that their baggage handlers rifle passengers' suitcases. The entire incident was caught on film. Lots of red faces over at Qantas at the moment.

And it does make you wonder if Schapelle Corby might have just gotten royally screwed.

[amazona]

46. ok that's interesting to hear

I'll tell you why it seemed so far-fetched to me, so you'll know where I'm coming from. In the U.S. baggage cannot be locked, yet what always happens is that stuff is stolen out of your bags and it never happens that stuff is put into your bags other than a nastygram from the TSA saying they've searched your bag. (They always search my bag, I could paper my walls with these notices.) Just at my airport, in New Orleans, we've had three rounds of arrests of baggage handlers etc. stealing stuff out of checked luggage since 9-11. So it is no secret that people are getting into our luggage. But even though we have a huge, huge drug and money-laundering market, you never hear of anyone opening a bag and finding drugs or money. It just does not happen! You hear every other kind of story -- my favorite is when the people stuffed $160,000 into their tires to transport the money and the tire exploded and sent hundred dollar bills flying all over the interstate -- but you never hear about baggage handlers stuffing our bags with goodies. It just seems a whacky way of doing things that would lead to product "disappearing" and all the resulting gunplay that would naturally arise when criminals fall out over a screwed-up criminal enterprise.


Also I think it struck a wrong note with me when some Australians huffed up and told me that they would never, ever visit Bali again because of the Corby matter. Even if she's innocent, it isn't the fault of Bali. They caught someone with drugs red-handed, a lot of drugs, and they have compromised by offering a lighter sentence than normal because of all the fuss. If the drugs are being dropped on people in Australia, then people should be boycotting travel to Australia, not to Indonesia! It just seems completely unfair. Here is a nation struggling to recover from the terrorist bombing and the tsunami, and now they are being blamed for something some baggage handler may or may not have done in Brisbane?

I suppose when I visit Australia, I'll make a point not to check any luggage, just in case. You are not the only Australian to say these things, not by a long shot. But it does seem like this mess needs to be cleaned up in Australia and genuine proof rather than speculation offered to the government of Indonesia. If Corby is innocent, I really do feel sorry for her, but I just don't see any legal system finding her innocent just on her say-so. I can't imagine any U.S. jury finding her innocent. She might be offered a deal and if she still insisted on her innocence and refused to give up any names, then she would be going away for a very long time. Indeed, it has become a scandal that innocent girlfriends in the United States often receive much longer sentences than their drug-dealing boyfriends, since they don't know anything about the business and therefore don't have any names to give up. So they go to trial, they are found guilty as a matter of course, and the judge who is angry that they went to trial instead of making a deal then sentences them for many, many years.

We seem to be focusing on Indonesia as this terribly unfair place where terrible things happen but the same thing, or worse, goes on every day in so-called first world countries to no one's great alarm. I don't necessarily blame the Indonesians for feeling a bit put-upon, I suspect I would feel the same.

[expatriate]

47. Yep, Corby doesn't have a lot going for her

and that's what people don't really understand. The things that might have helped her are, unfortunately, hearsay. The overall impression her trial gave is that she was basically considered guilty from the outset, even though the Indonesian legal system is supposedly based on "innocence until found guilty". One of the prosecution lawyers even stated during the early part of the trial that she was guilty and had to prove her innocence. This might be the grounds upon which she will appeal.

It isn't getting a lot of media attention internationally, but there are Australians who are protesting against the baggage handling situation. Some folks are stating that they will only bring carry-on luggage (my own option), others are refusing to fly Qantas any longer. Hopefully, something will be done to put a stop to baggage handlers going into luggage, for whatever reason.

I don't see any point in blaming Indonesia, and in a way, this has been a big wake up call for Australians, who tend to be a trifle naive because they believe they live in a "lucky country". The Bali bombing brought it home to people that bad things can happen,and the Schapelle Corby case really woke people up to the fact that other countries aren't just more exotic versions of Australia. If you get into trouble there, even if you aren't guilty, were set up or whatever, you could end up in a situation that isn't what you would face under the same circumstances at home.

[moddemny]

51. I am not an expert on pot either.........

but I have asked others who are more knowledgable and 9 pounds of marijuana is not worth anything near 100,000. A high retail estimate would be 4000 to 6000 a pound in the Northeast U.S. Traffickers get it wholesale for much less or grow it themselves. Smuggling is a high risk business and smugglers do expect to lose some loads. Pot is expensive for the end user because it is illegal to grow (and all the other risks and difficulites in distribution) not because it is expensive to produce.

[expatriate]

25. Thanks. I also forgot

The judge's home is provided for him by the Indonesian government - in fact, he lives in a complex which includes the courthouse.

He's going to hand down whatever sentence he thinks the government wants, and Indonesia is known for its hardline on drug cases - even though, once you're in their prisons, you can get whatever drugs you want, provided you bribe the right people.

And of course, it's been made very clear that should Schapelle Corby bribe the right folks, she might find her sentence reduced or overturned during her appeal - that is, if her sentence isn't increased or changed to death by hanging.

[ernstbass]

30. Thanks for your posts

It is good to get the take on this from someone in that part of the world.

[brokensymmetry]

42. Thanks for the update.

I feel so sorry for this young woman. I'm convinced she didn't get a fair trial.