Arrest Rewards

July 26th, 2008 at 10:13 am by David Farrar

AUSA has retracted its $5,000 reward for anyone who makes a citizen’s arrest of Condoleezza Rice. I suspect someone pointed out to them their liability if a student trying to “win” the $5,000 got seriously injured doing so.

The President, David Do, who offered the reward is an active Labour Party member and a former Princes Street Branch Chair. Maybe a journalist can ask Helen her view of her party members trying to get the US Secretary of State arrested? [UPDATE: David Do tells me he resigned his Labour Party membership last year]

I’ve been told that the even bigger dicks in has gone and offered a $10,000 reward – if true this would be from compulsory student fees.

The Canterbury student politicians seem more sensible, quoting the UCSA Blog:

As a student association, is this really their core business? Does arresting Condi help students in any way?

It’s crazy shit like this, which casts doubt on the credibility of Student representatives/politicians, and really hampers the effectiveness of our core responsibility, which is to represent students at our respective Universities.

Meanwhile Whale Oil offers his own $5,000 reward for a citizen’s arrest:

Popular and competent blogger Whaleoil has followed the lead of the Auckland University Students Association in offering a $5000 reward for the arrest of a well known criminal who has recently entered New Zealand: Winston Peters.

Cameron notes:

“And just before Peter Low gets on the phone, the competition is not open to triad gangs,” adds Slater.

Heh. For the avoidance of doubt I will point out the post is , not a literal accusation of criminal behaviour!

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

54 Responses to “Arrest Rewards”

  1. Glenn (69 comments) says:

    There’s probably a place for wrong-headed, dopey political activism that re-enacts the 60s, but not one that should be occupied by student associations. The Canterbury folks are quite right; this would do nothing for student interests – in fact, it works against them: the parties that student associations should legitimately negotiate with (University, government, etc.) view this kind of activity with something between disdain and contempt, undermining their negotiating power. Fine for a radical fringe group, idiotic for a President of an association that claims to represent a cross-section of students.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “The AUSA President, David Do, who offered the reward is an active Labour Party member and a former Princes Street Branch Chair. Maybe a journalist can ask Helen her view of her party members trying to get the US Secretary of State arrested?”

    David Doh is just the tip of the iceberg. Get these filthy communist scum out of our universities and make them facilities for educating our young, not indoctrinating them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Daniel Sloan (14 comments) says:

    I think we should all support Whaleoil on this one. Now all we need to do is find a way to label Peters a war ciminal and let nature take its course.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    I think Bob Jones may be taking some money off Whaleoil real soon

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Of course if any communist leader and criminal ever turned up here there’d be no such reward offered. If Castro had ever visited NZ, that lowlife murdering totalitarian scum who has shot Cubans to death by the score and kept protesters for democracy locked in dungeons for decades, these hypocritical leftist bastards would have put down a red carpet and been climbing over each other’s backs to kiss his feet.

    I’m just amazed these demented scum get the traction they do. Its unbelievable they’re tolerated as representatives of NZ’s academia. That they are shows what depth that profession has sunk to. Where are the average student’s critical thinking skills?? Where the hell is NZ’s political judgment???

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Yunno Redbaiter I’m stunned that the media largely ignore the real motives and of the organisers at AUSA.

    The one that gets me most is this AUSA international affairs officer and alleged terrorist Omar Hamed.
    Maybe unimportant to the media?, or have they just become more accepting of having extremist scum like that running our student bodies?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Southern Raider (1,756 comments) says:

    Agree Patrick. It pisses me off when the media quotes these pricks without any supporting information about who they are. At least the editorial columns in the paper always have a disclaimer.

    They also mentioned a comment from Hamed the AUSA “peace spokesperson” who labelled Rice a war crmina, but walks around singing the praises of Iran, Hamas and Hizbollah.

    Ban the bastards and concentrate on education.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Couldn’t agree more Southern Raider. I’ve got two more coming up for varsity within the next 6 years. Im starting to think about other options overseas for them now.

    Have you read the bio on this creep Hamed?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. pete (428 comments) says:

    If it’s not the business of the students’ associations to point out that war criminals should be arrested, then whose is it, and why aren’t they doing it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Lee C (4,516 comments) says:

    funnily enough this is just the kind of activity which Helen would have engaged in ‘back in the day’. I guess she’s had a rethink about her principles since then,.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Hmmm… I think AUSA is out of its depth here.

    First, dealing with a point of contract law, consider how this started:

    New Zealand’s largest students’ association has offered any Auckland University student a $5000 reward if they are able to make a successful citizen’s arrest of United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to Auckland over the weekend, for her role in overseeing the illegal invasion and continued occupation of Iraq.

    Lawyers learn about this case in Contract 101. It stands for this principle: a conditional offer made to the world at large (or to a defined class in the world at large – here Auckland University students) can be capable of acceptance by anyone who satisfies the conditions.

    Which makes this comment on the previous thread all the more interesting…

    # Jackson Wood (51) –8 Says:
    July 24th, 2008 at 7:02 pm

    If you’d taken the trouble to actually ring David Do or Omar Hamed you’d have figured out that it was a symbolic joke…
    There are no budgeted funds for the reward… and really, if you were to engage cognitive functions, how likely is it that a student is going to get within 5 metres of Condi?

    [DPF: I will remember never to take AUSA press releases at face value again.]

    First, one has to question whether Jackson (who claims to be in the know) was mistaken about budgeted funds not being available – otherwise why was the offer retracted? Second, AUSA couldn’t set that up as a legal defence anyway, if they incurred a $5,000 debt as a result of its “offer” being taken up by an impressionable student wanted to supplement his or her student allowance.

    Not that anyone needs to worry – the ragtag AUSA brigade probably couldn’t run a bath, let alone a professional citizen’s arrest operation!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. Glenn (69 comments) says:

    If it’s not the business of the students’ associations to point out that war criminals should be arrested, then whose is it, and why aren’t they doing it?

    If you’re wrongheaded enough to buy the “war criminal” meme, look to the speciously named “Global Peace and Justice”, or your pick of other wacko fringe groups. Why aren’t they doing it? Because, standing on their own merits, they don’t have the resources. They don’t have compulsory membership or funding from the University.

    What’s happened here is what’s always happened: Student “leaders” get elected by a motivated minority (comprised of the aforementioned fringe), pretend they have a mandate to speak for all students, and use the captured resources of the monopoly association for their own pet projects. The vast majority of students – who are less apathetic than they are preoccupied by more immediate concerns – don’t vote for them and don’t care enough to oppose them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “If it’s not the business of the students’ associations to point out that war criminals should be arrested, then whose is it, and why aren’t they doing it?”

    I couldn’t think of a more unsuitable bunch of thugs myself. These scum are the modern day representatives of Joe Stalin’s communist henchmen, known for breaking down doors in the early hours of the morning, dragging innocents from their beds, subjecting them to false trials in kangaroo courts with politically partisan prosecutors and judges, and dispatching them to places where their often never seen or heard from ever again. The use of “citizens” arrests for alleged political crimes is something the left have always abused, and the so called representatives from the AUSA, really just ignorant lying thugs, would be behaving in exactly the same way today as Stalin’s henchmen all those years ago, if they thought they could get away with it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. stephen (4,063 comments) says:

    Er I read in the Listener or Metro a while ago that David Do resigned his Labour party membership a while ago ‘to concentrate on students’, or words to that effect. Go figure.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Stephen:

    Fascinating. You know, after reading your comment, I decided to google “David Do” and the results indicate he’s been a very busy man indeed.

    Last year he apparently circulated this campaign email – David Do for AUSA President 2008. Now what’s particularly striking about this email is he leaves out a lot – which, judging by this second-hand account, he was apparently willing to share with an audience a year earlier:

    Gutsy David Do unhesitatingly identifies himself as a gay queer Chinese New Zealander. What more simple identity could there be? A committed gay queer activist, sexuality educator, Student Welfare Officer at Auckland Uni., president of the queer student’s group, UniQ, and chair of a branch of Labour party, and, oh yeah, a student of politics and history. David Do must never sleep. Maybe because he seemed to be operating in ‘real time’, sharing his “journey”, coming out to the mostly Chinese audience, baring his youthful, vulnerable, honest soul. Do David had the wow factor! Like a rush of air from a window suddenly thrown open, Do had no hesitation in stepping confidently into one of his many roles and doing some educating on queer awareness. While admiring his uncompromising honesty, I ached a bit with protectiveness for his youthful vulnerability. My anguish was relieved when a gay man from the audience offered Do a gift of courage and faith for his personal journey. Maybe it was the acceptance of the audience in making it safe for him; and thereby making me feel safe too that shrunk the room from a large impersonal lecture theatre to a family lounge – all of us on the edge of our cushioned chairs, praying for ‘gutsy’.

    And, yes, this would be the same David Do who (quoting from another google hit) last month “walked cockily around campus creating awareness of male sexual health issues and STI checks while wearing a costume shaped like a penis”.

    So it’s fair to say David Do has been an enthusiastic participant in various AUSA activities. My point is he’s not afraid to campaign for causes he believes in. But “global peace issues” (if one can describe it that way) seems to be a new campaign area for him.

    Now one can perhaps understand why student union committees might feel obliged to campaign for more student financial assistance (to keep up appearances that they’re doing something) for their ever-grateful student constitutents (at taxpayers’ expense). But I think as soon as they branch out into blatantly political issues, as we’re seeing here with this arrest reward publicity stunt, they’re dancing on quicksand – simply because they can’t possibly claim to represent a unified student position on such issues.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    So let me get this straight. We have two people at the AUSA behind this,

    Mr David Do. Chinese,
    and
    Mr Omar Hamed, a Greek born Palestinian. (who has incidentally been arrested for terrorism)

    These two put a bounty on the head of the Secretary of State of the world’s largest democracy claiming human rights violations.

    One is Chinese and the other a Palestinian. Does anyone else see just a bit of irony here?

    [DPF: They are both NZers as far as I know. Their ethnicity seems of no relevance]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. pete (428 comments) says:

    Glenn, AUSA haven’t had compulsory membership for a long time. The result, as intended, is less influence; as a side effect it’s easier for fringe groups from the left or right to control the association.

    I find it interesting that the right are more fixated on the actions of a few students than on the war criminal who’s visting our country.

    [DPF: I find it interesting the left label people they don't like as war criminals.]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Pete,
    I assume you are talking about Ahmed Zaoui – who didn’t just visit. They gave him bloody residency. (That the only war criminal I know of)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    War criminal! Really? Where? Ahhhh, Condi! I get it. She’s a war criminal because you don’t like her country’s foreign policy. So tell me pete, is Helen Clark a human rights abuser beacuse some NZers live below the povety line? Of course not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Pete:

    AUSA haven’t had compulsory membership for a long time. The result, as intended, is less influence; as a side effect it’s easier for fringe groups from the left or right to control the association.

    This is grossly misleading. Quoting from AUSA’s website:

    AUSA is NZ’s only voluntary students’ association, which means you choose whether to join in order to access the many benefits that AUSA provides. It is also completely free to join.

    AUSA is funded partly by the University to help bring you some of the services and then predominantly survives off money from its businesses that have been built up over the past. AUSA is the 100% owners of Shadows, bFM, Studentcard, UBS Bookshop and the main Café.

    So let me get this right – a voluntary membership that’s “free” to join?

    Hmmm, aside from Owen Glenn, where do you think Auckland University’s funding comes from – taxpayer funding and student fees?

    I find it interesting that the right are more fixated on the actions of a few students than on the war criminal who’s visting our country.

    No Pete, I find it interesting that you haven’t cited a reputable international body which has declared Rice to be a war criminal. Hint: it’s put-up or shut-up time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Condi Rice is not a war criminal. This is just a typical cowardly leftist smear and lie.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. pete (428 comments) says:

    No Pete, I find it interesting that you haven’t cited a reputable international body which has declared Rice to be a war criminal.

    Since you’ll just label any organisation that does so “disreputable”, I don’t see the point. In the reality-based community, someone becomes a war criminal when they commit war crimes, not when some bureaucrat labels them as one.

    If you need me to point you towards evidence that Dr Rice ordered the torture of detainees, or if you think this is about the left labelling people they don’t like, then you’re wilfully misinformed.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. baxter (893 comments) says:

    The student offer was on the international Fox ticker news throughout yesterday evening.It was the only mention of any news about NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. PhilBest (5,120 comments) says:

    Oh, you hate-America Lefties just love to “shoot the messenger” every time you don’t like the message, but you don’t like it when WE point out that EVERY organisation that passes noble “resolutions” and makes noble “rulings” against the USA just HAPPENS to be a “front” organisation for Communism or some other totalitarian ideology that is in reality exponentially worse than even the worst allegations these people make about the USA.

    BAH.

    Well done, Redbaiter, in the above exchanges. Score 100 nil to you………..

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    Thanks Phil. Funny ain’t it how these posturing lying cowardly scum are ever ready to smear Condi Rice, but numerous dignitaries from Red China’s murderous totalitarian regime have frequently traveled in and out of NZ and we’ve heard not a word from “gutsy” David Doh and his comrades, let alone seen any rewards offered for “citizens” arrests.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. clintheine (1,569 comments) says:

    Pete “”If it’s not the business of the students’ associations to point out that war criminals should be arrested, then whose is it, and why aren’t they doing it?””

    Ahh isn’t it the core purpise of a student union to advocate for students in relation to quality of education, equal access for students to classes, advocacy for student issues and to ensure that their members get a degree and graduate. I didn’t see anywhere where there was a mandate to play silly buggers with their membership fees ( taxpayers money) nor did I see any written policy stating that they would jump on any trendy political cause whether it was right or not.

    Rice isn’t a war criminal…. that’s that. Why is it that students think they know better?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Pete:

    I take it you’ve conceded my 5:27 comment about AUSA?

    Since you’ll just label any organisation that does so “disreputable”, I don’t see the point. In the reality-based community, someone becomes a war criminal when they commit war crimes, not when some bureaucrat labels them as one.

    Sookywahwah! Now Pete, I realise you want to rattle of a list of human rights organisations, but in the reality-based community someone becomes a war criminal when they commit and are prosecuted for war crimes. To prosecute someone, you need a legal definition of “war crimes” and a forum with prosecutorial jurisdiction.

    As one example, the legal definition of “war crimes” within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is here (article 8). Ah, you say, but the US isn’t subject to the ICC. Well, that’s quite possibly about to change – see this article:

    Presidential candidates diverge on U.S. joining war crimes court

    Bob Egelko, [San Francisco] Chronicle Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 2, 2008

    The International Criminal Court isn’t discussed much in the presidential campaign, but few issues are more revealing of a candidate’s perspective on the United States’ legal and political relations with the rest of the world.

    Unlike the rest of the Republican field, Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have taken similar wait-and-see positions, while most of the other Democratic hopefuls have called for full U.S. membership.

    As for your snarky comment about bureaucratic labels, which basically amounts to a concession that you have no substantive argument, you couldn’t be more wrong: it goes to the important question of jurisdiction. For instance, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in order to deal with Slobodan Milošević’s atrocities (including war crimes).

    So I ask you again: where is your argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    [Attempted repost - my previous one was swallowed up]

    Pete:

    I take it you’ve conceded my 5:27 comment about AUSA?

    Since you’ll just label any organisation that does so “disreputable”, I don’t see the point. In the reality-based community, someone becomes a war criminal when they commit war crimes, not when some bureaucrat labels them as one.

    Sookywahwah! Now Pete, I realise you want to rattle of a list of human rights organisations, but in the reality-based community someone becomes a war criminal when they commit and are prosecuted for war crimes. To prosecute someone, you need a legal definition of “war crimes” and a forum with prosecutorial jurisdiction.

    As one example, the legal definition of “war crimes” within the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is here (article 8). Ah, you say, but the US isn’t subject to the ICC. Well, that’s quite possibly about to change – see this article:

    Presidential candidates diverge on U.S. joining war crimes court

    Bob Egelko, [San Francisco] Chronicle Staff Writer
    Wednesday, January 2, 2008

    The International Criminal Court isn’t discussed much in the presidential campaign, but few issues are more revealing of a candidate’s perspective on the United States’ legal and political relations with the rest of the world.

    Unlike the rest of the Republican field, Sen. John McCain has said he would like to see the United States join the international court, although he would first require more protections for U.S. personnel. Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have taken similar wait-and-see positions, while most of the other Democratic hopefuls have called for full U.S. membership.

    As for your snarky comment about bureaucratic labels, which basically amounts to a concession that you have no substantive argument, you couldn’t be more wrong: it goes to the important question of jurisdiction. For instance, the United Nations Security Council established the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, in order to deal with Slobodan Milošević’s atrocities (including war crimes).

    So I ask you again, Pete, where is your argument?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. pete (428 comments) says:

    Rice isn’t a war criminal…. that’s that.

    Argument by assertion? Maybe they thing they know better than you because they’re at least aware of the evidence?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Pete:

    One of my comments is tied up in moderation, so until DPF gets around to releasing it, how about considering your contributions so far to this thread:

    If it’s not the business of the students’ associations to point out that war criminals should be arrested, then whose is it, and why aren’t they doing it?

    This is a rhetorical question – you fail to make a compelling case.

    I find it interesting that the right are more fixated on the actions of a few students than on the war criminal who’s visting our country.

    You still haven’t made your case – but nice try at smearing “the right”.

    Since you’ll just label any organisation that does so “disreputable”, I don’t see the point. In the reality-based community, someone becomes a war criminal when they commit war crimes, not when some bureaucrat labels them as one.

    Oops, you’ve just conceded you have no case!

    If you need me to point you towards evidence that Dr Rice ordered the torture of detainees, or if you think this is about the left labelling people they don’t like, then you’re wilfully misinformed.

    You’re dancing on the edge of a pin – but still fail to make your case!

    In summary, I think you’re a master of the “argument by assertion” technique you’ve mentioned (7:59). Well done.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. pete (428 comments) says:

    N, this is my case:

    1. There is evidence that Dr Rice helped to authorise torture.
    2. You can find this evidence without me holding your hand.

    But go ahead, stick your fingers in your ears and call it a “smear”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Pete:

    Your contributions to this debate are, frankly, underwhelming.

    You claim to have a case. As I explained above, to prosecute someone for war crimes, you need a legal definition and a forum with prosecutorial jurisdiction. Feel free to address both points in sufficient detail, and I (and others) might then have something substantive to respond to. As it is, I note you’ve resiled from your earlier claim (Dr Rice ordered the torture of detainees) to a lesser claim (There is evidence that Dr Rice helped to authorise torture). So you’re making unsubstantiated and inconsistent arguments. Wow, is that what you call a case?

    Go ahead, stick your finger in your ears.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    pete, there’s just a teesny-weensy problem agreeing a definitions for words like evidence, authorise and torture.

    Still, I accept that if one varies these definitions sufficiently one could call Condi a war criminal while also labelling Santa Claus a child molester and Helen Clark unkind to small animals.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “someone becomes a war criminal when they commit war crimes”

    no they don’t, by definition you are not a ‘criminal’ until you are found guilty of committing a crime, and it’s only “when some bureaucrat labels them as one.” under the principle of other less democratic laws, such as Socialist Law (nice to see you dont subscribe to that)

    I stand corrected but Soviet Law (or Socialist Law) has and two ‘people’s assessors’ who are bureaucrats whereas English common law and the United States Constitution recognise the right to a jury trial to be a fundamental civil liberty or civil right, (tried by your peers)

    Therefore no ‘bureaucrat’ is likely to judge the label, just affix it. but no ones a criminal until found guilty of a crime by the countries legal system.

    Otherwise we would have mob rule and vigilante justice – but feel free to take a vote on that at the AUSA meeting

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. pete (428 comments) says:

    So you’re all going to resort to semantics? Actual real people were actually really tortured. Dr Rice was part of the administration that ordered that torture, and was actively involved in ordering that actual real torture.

    New Zealand has jurisdiction over war crimes, and a legal definition of them. Again, I’m not going to hold your hand if you don’t have the interest or the ability to use Google.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. getstaffed (9,189 comments) says:

    pete, you are part of an administration that oversees fellow kiwis living below the bread line.

    so are you a human rights abuser, or would you like to use semantics to suggest otherwise?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. pete (428 comments) says:

    Patrick, you seem a little confused. I’m arguing, along with AUSA, that Dr Rice should be put on trial for war crimes, on the basis that she committed war crimes. Apparently you think she shouldn’t be put on trial because she hasn’t been found guilty yet?

    getstaffed, I’m not part of any administration.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “Actual real people were actually really tortured”

    what, you mean those mass murdering terrorists Abu Zubaydah Khalid, Sheik Mohammad & Ramzi bin al-Shibh –responsible for the deaths of hundreds of innocent men, women and children?

    GOOD JOB!

    (no Pete, Im saying you cannot call her a war criminal)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. pete (428 comments) says:

    N, just seen your earlier (held in moderation?) posts.

    I’m not sure what your “point” about AUSA was. I said they aren’t compulsory, and you responded that they are in fact voluntary.

    It looks like we fundamentally disagree about why war crimes are immoral. I believe it is wrong to commit war crimes, while you lot seem to think it’s only wrong if you get caught.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “while you lot seem to think it’s only wrong if you get caught”

    Nope, I’m not saying that either. I dont agree with what went on Abu Ghraib and those soldiers were caught and punished accordingly.

    Abu Zubaydah Khalid however was waterboarded to extract information that led to the arrests of Sheik Mohammad & Ramzi bin al-Shibh and prevented further deaths of innocent civilians. All were Al-Qaeda terrorists, and all invoved in 911.
    IMO that’s perfectly justifiable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. pete (428 comments) says:

    GOOD JOB!

    Well, I guess “I’m okay with torture” is at least an actual argument. OTOH, given that they had valuable intelligence, I’d rather not use techniques designed to extract false confessions.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “I’d rather not use techniques designed to extract false confessions”

    It couldn’t have been false because he gave up the other two terrorists!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. pete (428 comments) says:

    I’m not going to take that administration’s word for it that a) they got that info through torture and b) normal interrogation would have been insufficient. So I’d like to see some sort of investigation or trial (even if it’s started by some silly stunt).

    Anyway, I’m sure we both have better things to do on a Saturday night (not sure about N). Later.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Pete:

    I’m not sure what your “point” about AUSA was. I said they aren’t compulsory, and you responded that they are in fact voluntary.

    You appear to have completely misunderstood my argument, so I’ll restate it in more detail:

    - Voluntary membership implies payment of a membership fee.
    - AUSA’s website says it’s “completely free to join” – ie Auckland Uni students don’t pay a membership fee.
    - AUSA has to find the economic equivalent of a membership fee elsewhere – which, according to AUSA’s website, comes from its business activities (presumably the legacy of previous generations of students) and also from Auckland Uni.
    - Auckland Uni is funded by taxpayer and student contributions (and generous philanthropists like Owen Glenn).
    - Auckland Uni students have effectively paid some of their “membership fee” to AUSA indirectly through Auckland Uni.
    - Therefore AUSA membership isn’t “voluntary” in the true sense.

    All of which is relevant to your original claim:

    AUSA haven’t had compulsory membership for a long time. The result, as intended, is less influence; as a side effect it’s easier for fringe groups from the left or right to control the association.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. michaelt (13 comments) says:

    AUSA is more of a service provider than a union in the traditional sense, and I would say that the majority of the university funding they receive is justified as payment for the services they provide to students, services that’d otherwise likely be provided by another company (which may or may not be preferable).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    “So I’d like to see some sort of investigation or trial”

    Yeah right, PC shit all over again. Sit around and wait for another 2-3 months and let another 1,000 innocent civilians get massacred.
    Perhaps we could have a counseling session or something similar?, maybe a family group conference? or better still hold hands in a circle singing kumbaya and ask them nicely?

    War is war pal, these mongrels started it, will kill anyone and they don’t play by any rules – so fuck off

    (and in case you didnt notice we lost the test to the Aussies!)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Nomestradamus (3,160 comments) says:

    Pete:

    So I’d like to see some sort of investigation or trial (even if it’s started by some silly stunt).

    Ok, Pete, I’m going to be charitable here and assume you’re ballsy enough to do a “silly stunt” (actually I don’t – hence the assumption).

    Here’s a truly inspirational (but obviously embellished) account of Peter Tatchell’s first attempted citizen’s arrest of Robert Mugabe in 1999:

    We feared Mugabe’s bodyguards were armed and might threaten to shoot us. But their initial reaction was stunned disbelief and paralysis. Mugabe’s jaw dropped. His face turned ashen. As he shrank back in his seat, the president’s eyes betrayed real fear. Perhaps he thought we were going to kill him.

    To reassure the bodyguards of our peaceful intention, and hopefully pre-empt any shooting, I shouted at the top of my voice: “Call the police. The president is under arrest on charges of torture.”

    When the police arrived, I offered my evidence for Mugabe’s arrest. They were not interested. The dossier from Amnesty International was knocked aside.

    Still keen?

    Well, just to complete the picture for you, Tatchell definitely came off second-best in 2001:

    Andrew Osborn in Brussels and Jon Henley in Paris
    The Guardian,
    Tuesday March 6 2001

    The gay and human rights campaigner Peter Tatchell was savagely beaten by bodyguards protecting President Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe as he tried to make a citizen’s arrest yesterday of the African leader during an official visit to meet a senior European Union commissioner.

    As Mr Tatchell attempted his citizen’s arrest he was repulsed forcefully and left lying semi-conscious in the gutter after receiving at least three blows to the head.

    Mr Mugabe laughed and joked with one of his minders in the back of his limousine as Mr Tatchell was beaten.

    So, Pete, still think you’re up for the mission of a lifetime – we’re talking about Dr Rice here of course!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Falafulu Fisi (2,177 comments) says:

    Pete, how about try to get a PhD like Dr. Rice , and then try to criticize her, OK? This means that you would be on the same par as Dr. Rice. Or otherwise Te Wanaga is always available for illiterate like yourself to get a qualification in , say carpet cleaning or something like that (perhaps psychics).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Student Politics have always been the backyard for tossers and PC lezzers getting their own back on “those yukky people”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. kisekiman (224 comments) says:

    I doubt Condi’s minders would act in such an indecorous manner as Mugabe’s thugs but perhaps Mallard could be put in charge of defending her honour in the event of an enthusiastic student hoping to bag the 5 grand.

    Labour’s strongman to the rescue. What a PR coup that would be for the embattled Govt. Surprised they haven’t thought of it sooner.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. expat (4,048 comments) says:

    Trevs a hard man in the house but I doubt he’d be up for a bit of biffo with some young turks – his type like to bully with the advantage on their side.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. radar (319 comments) says:

    Redbaiter said “David Doh is just the tip of the iceberg. Get these filthy communist scum out of our universities and make them facilities for educating our young, not indoctrinating them.”

    And just how do you propose we get these class traitors out of our universities? Sounds like communist repression to me. Denying people the right to an education because of their political opinions. Redbaiter believes in repression just as his idol Fidel Castro does. How fitting.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Redbaiter (13,197 comments) says:

    “Denying people the right to an education because of their political opinions.”

    Poor little maroon radar, a knuckle dragging commie whose ability to think critically and logically is so crippled he has to redefine the debate before he can come up with (what he perceives as) a counter argument. Its a common strategy of half educated Stalinists. I’m advocating for broader education you tiresome low IQ dumbarse, one that includes other perspectives besides the present extreme left perspective. The commies who control education are all for diversity, except when it comes to the political spectrum.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. radar (319 comments) says:

    Calling me names does nothing for your argument, Redbaiter.

    How can you claim to be advocating for broader education when you have stated that you want to “Get these filthy communist scum out of our universities”? You were referring to David Do. He is a student at the University of Auckland. You have actually stated that you think people whose political opinions you dislike should be denied a university education. The similarities between your stance and communism are striking.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.