Your last post proved to me that you are a near sighted person - your stubbornness doesn't let you see beyond your own views - even though your views are very honourable, and I respect you for that.
Um no it isn't - seriously the "demands" are being made because the judgement is flawed. The Indonesians could believe anything that want but that won't make it right. A belief is certainly not a truth.
I give up. Are you missing function in a part of your brain that is necessary for you to realise that this is YOUR VIEW, while the Indonesian people have THEIR VIEW. No view is more or less credible - too much hearsay and feeling motivates you to hold the view that you do - you don't have anything solid to support your statement.
So why do you think you can make such a serious claim about their courts being flawed? Time and time again you have failed to provide solid evidence of your claim - surely you realise that when you make such a strong statement, some evidence is expected in support of your case? Such rules of providing evidence for serious claims are necessary if the world is to maintain order - perhaps, you might reason, there is much common knowledge/anecdotal evidence about Indonesian corruption etc etc. But you should always be prepared to have some solid evidence pertaining to the specific claim that you make - otherwise do not expect to be taken seriously.
If you expect drastic action to be taken on account of your convictions about the Indonesian courts, then you must be prepared to provide objective proof of your claim. Otherwise, we could all accuse the tax department of being corrupt (because everyone knows it!!!?) and ask for our money back. Just like when a criminal is obviously guilty, a hearing is still had. Why? Because a procedure needs to be followed to maintain a system that works in most cases, for the greater good - often, implementing a procedure is a waste of time because the outcome is obvious. But that is not the point - there must be no complacency. So if you ever actually want your views to go beyond the realm of personal discussion, provide evidence for your claims about the corruption in Corby's hearings, and you will be a champion of the nation.
Until you become a champion of the nation, I will continue the discussion in the context of Corby being guilty.
I'll quickly address your points about Indonesian prisoners etc. The fact is, a foreigner in a country who breaks a law of that land is subject to the punishment of the country. All countries have different laws, where things might be illegal in one country and not the other, vice versa etc etc. If every country was to demand the release of its people from foreign prisons where they believe the laws of the detaining country are not right, then you would have chaos.
It is one thing to demand the release of a prisoner who is wrongfully convicted. It is another thing to demand the release of a prisoner who broke the law of the land. It would be nice, though, if some connection existed between both countries to facilitate some real discussion concerning harsh laws in each country.
But this is where incongruent perception means an agreement will never be reached.
A crime that is serious in one country will often be petty in another. So HOW do two nations agree about prisoners then? Do they have a fucking war? Comeon man, you must realise that in such a situation, to demand the release of a prisoner is a breach of sovereignty and the right to govern one's own country.
It is one thing for a country to appeal about the treatment of the prisoner, and to make sure international laws and human rights are not breached. There are avenues for such complaints. But it is different to complain about the detention of a person because their country of origin doesn't believe that their crime was serious. Surely you agree that a nation is entitled to its own opinion about laws in the country? If you do, then a country acting within its own laws when passing judgment has done nothing wrong, even if you disagree with their laws (which I often do).
Who cares if some judge(s) claims she committed a crime, their only human and no more infallible then anyone else. They don’t have a god given, just a corruptly given right to judge people.
Who cares if some judge sentences a murderer to life in prison? Let the guy out, how do I know the judge didn't make a fuckin mistake! Who cares if my doctor tells me I've got cancer? They are only human!!!!!!!! I mean, their opinion on the law or medicine is about as reliable as a used car salesman's, right? 5-7+ years of tertiary education and many more years of real life experience in their fields doesn't make them any different from the next guy, no way sir.
Who does have a god given right to judge? Apart from god, if/in whatever form it exists, no-one does. But society is designed in such a way that there are members of society who are most qualified to judge, most qualified to operate, most qualified to build automobile engines etc. The one's who are most qualified to judge are called 'judges' - pretty cool eh?
