Dicks

July 24th, 2008 at 4:49 pm by David Farrar

The Auckland University Students’ Association has offered $5,000 reward to anyone who arrests US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice during her visit to New Zealand this weekend.

What a bunch of halfwits.

The is in theory voluntary membership, but in reality Auckland University hands over a big dosh of money each year to fund them. That means either student money or government money is being used to find this reward.

All the more reason one should have true voluntary membership of student associations – no back door funding deals from universities as they have in Auckland and Canterbury. Let them be totally reliant on persuading students to hand over their money, and see how long such idiocy lasts?

Tags: ,

144 Responses to “Dicks”

  1. IdiotSavant (88 comments) says:

    The only reason they’re dicks is that they’re putting up a reward for something the NZ police should be doing for free.

    As National Security Advisor, Rice chaired the NSC principals meetings which saw the US adopt its policy of torture. During these meetings, she oversaw and participated in a specific decision to torture a specific, identified individual: al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah. This makes her guilty not only of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, but also of conspiracy to torture. And both of these are crimes under NZ law, over which New Zealand (along with all other civilised countries) exerts universal jurisdiction (see the Geneva Conventions Act 1958 and Crimes of Torture Act 1989).

    Rice should be arrested the moment she sets foot in the country, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Instead, the leaders of both our major parties will be falling all over themselves to crawl up her arse, playing sycophant to a torturer and war criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (783 comments) says:

    there is no funding of this reward
    no one could pull it off

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

    I just wished the police already had their Tazers, for the first dope smoking, loan sucking lefty varsity student who steps forward

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

    Well, they may be dicks but they have a point.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. David Farrar (1,881 comments) says:

    I/S – and has any the UN or the ICC suggested she has broken any international law? Has any democratic nation state? Individual citizens don’t get to decide what international law means – especially 19 year odl university students.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    Student humour with a bit of a cutting edge to it – now there’s a surprise! But while we’re on this subject:

    If Winston Peters as our Foreign Minister nailed Condoleezza Rice after a few chardonnays at the Hummingbird, would he be redeemed in your eyes?

    (a) Yes
    (b) No
    (c) Almost
    (d) No but I would envy the b*stard
    (e) Winston has done nothing from which he requires redemption

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

    “Instead, the leaders of both our major parties will be falling all over themselves to crawl up her arse, playing sycophant to a torturer and war criminal.”

    Said by a slimy little communist liar and coward who is falling over himself to crawl up the arse of murdering terrorists and betray western civilization to Islamist savages and barbarians. These yellow backed soft little self indulgent narcissistic spoilt brat scum should be arrested themselves for treason.

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

    A!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    Idiot Savant is right. We should be the kind of country that says to war criminals, “Don’t want to be arrested? Don’t come here.” I’m sure the government was as delighted as everyone else when Karadzic was arrested. Hypocritical that they would then turn around and invite another war criminal to be wined and dined.

    Apply the law equally to all. It’s as simple as that. Anything less is hypocrisy. She shouldn’t get to not be charged just because some Kiwis kind of like her and her country has a lot of power and money.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. Ryan Sproull (7,093 comments) says:

    Said by a slimy little communist liar and coward who is falling over himself to crawl up the arse of murdering terrorists and betray western civilization to Islamist savages and barbarians. These yellow backed soft little self indulgent narcissistic spoilt brat scum should be arrested themselves for treason.

    Arrest Islamic terrorists too.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    And they say those on the right are misogynists!! And (c).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. jafapete (766 comments) says:

    DPF: “…especially 19 year odl university students.”

    God, if I/S is 19y/o, then imagine how devasting he’ll be when he grows up. A real challenge to NZ’s busiest political blogger, I’ll bet.

    [DPF: I meant the AUSA folks.]

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

    “imagine how devasting he’ll be when he grows up.”

    If he’s anything like you Jafaboy, he’s never going to achieve that milestone.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. jafapete (766 comments) says:

    Thanks DPF, You had me worried there for a moment.

    Oh, and Redbaiter, you may think that this is mature comment, but I have no doubt that many would disagree: “Said by a slimy little communist liar and coward who is falling over himself to crawl up the arse of murdering terrorists and betray western civilization to Islamist savages and barbarians. These yellow backed soft little self indulgent narcissistic spoilt brat scum should be arrested themselves for treason.”

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

    “Arrest Islamic terrorists too.”

    So those who video themselves hacking the heads off innocent civilians (and others) are in the drooling idiot Sproul’s eyes, morally equivalent to Condeleeza Rice. These sick leftist fuckwits never stop propagandizing for their murdering buddies.

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

    “Oh, and Redbaiter, you may think that this is mature comment, but I have no doubt that many would disagree”

    Hahah- Really Jafaboy, and of course I’ve always shown so much concern over the fact that communists and terrorist sympathizers disagree with me.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    Ryan, I fully agree that all war criminals should be arrested on sight. Of course, last I looked the body that declared people to be war criminals was the UN. I’m pretty sure they did so for Karadzic, but I must have missed the memo on Rice. I guess it didn’t get much media coverage at the time.

    I would of course be interested to see how the UN continued to operate when the USA removes funding for it – I seem to recall they pay something like 25% of the costs? Must be a lot of fun watching their own money being spent by people like you on useful things like lining up to call you a war criminal. And you wonder why some of the more rabid folks in America think that all foreigners are out to get them and the UN a stooge.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. ZenTiger (426 comments) says:

    And lets not sign FTA’s with China either.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    jafa – don’t be like that! You filthy corrupt half-educated terrorist-supporting knuckle-dragging sick halfwit commie scum ;-)

    (Geez, it’s hard work just filling one line of text with that stuff!)

    PS: Oh, and (d) by the way…

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

    Look, for all the lefty hate-America assholes who pontificate about the Geneva Conventions, WTF does the Geneva Conventions say about the “rights” of “combatants” who don’t wear uniforms?

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

    These leftist idiots don’t have the brains to understand that when they promote these kind of ideas, it encourages the terrorists to greater efforts. The left are the terrorist’s allies. Without the left’s predictable (and cowardly) anti-West reaction to every terrorist event, terrorism would cease to be an effective political strategy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. goodgod (1,363 comments) says:

    Well it won’t be any law students that take up the offer. If you read the crimes act there is no basis there for a citizens arrest of Rice. God, what idiots. They’re at university and they can’t read or research anything in a most basic form. “War crimes” what rubbish. And to call for an arrest before any crime has taken place?

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

    “And to call for an arrest before any crime has taken place?”

    They are Stalinists. Concerned not with defending the rights of the weak and powerless, but attacking those they see as the symbols of capitalism. Same old same old. They learned their trade from Joe and the Cheka. First come the false allegations, then the false arrests, then the kangaroo courts stacked with jurors sympathetic to the political objectives of the prosecutors, and after the desired and inevitable conviction, its off to the firing squad or the gulags. That this is what comes from our universities these days emphasizes the state of social decay and the degenerate social conditions the power obsessed left, who mostly control such institutions, have brought upon us.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Ed Snack (1,829 comments) says:

    And I/S was of course falling over himself to arrest the President of China when he last visited, a man guilty of numerous crimes against humanity and against his “own” people. Oh yes, of course he was, oh, wait…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Yet another opportunity for our left wing nutters to embarass us all on the international stage.
    It never ceases to amaze me the retardation these fruit loops develop on foreign policy issues.

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

    Come ON, you lefty hate-America assholes, give me negative Karma but don’t answer my question, will ya? “What the F. does the Geneva Conventions say about the “rights” of “combatants” who don’t wear uniforms?” This whole issue is a scandalously twisted lefty beat-up. What Geneva conventions has the US “violated”?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. Jackson Wood (52 comments) says:

    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.]

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

    “If you’d taken the trouble to actually ring David Do or Omar Hamed”

    Who cares?? Dumb-arsed communist losers.

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

    Too bad this press release came through too late for us. Oh well.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    Phil Phil Phil;

    The Geneva convention sets out provisions for how you are to be treated if you are a Prisoner of War or a civilian. It is pretty obvious to a lot of governments (and people) around the world that the US stance of calling them “Illegal Combatants” instead of of “Prisoners of war” is bullshit semantics and a very, very cynical bid to appear to be acknowledging the letter of the Geneva Convention whilst blatantly ignoring the spirit of it.

    And BTW they don’t even do a very good job of following the letter of it either; Article 4 makes it very clear that “some fuckers with AK47s who we picked up in the desert” would qualify as Prisoners of War even if they weren’t wearing what you would call a Uniform:

    Article 4
    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) That of carrying arms openly;
    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

    So wearing a uniform has nothing to do with it. Civilised behaviour towards your fellow human beings has everything to do with it.

    Reference: UNHCHR website… http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

    And lastly, Phil please do not start with “you lefty hate-America assholes”. No-one is swearing and cursing and calling you names.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    RRM
    Did you see what happened on Sept 11?
    You fellas will be wringing your hands about the “rules of engagement” until they murder every last one of us.
    Get a grip on reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    Just a point of note. If you’re on the kiwiblog front page, and you take a look at where the action is at the moment – which threads have recent comments on them (to the left of the page), you find the following people holding forth on topics of interest to them:
    # RRM on Dicks
    # Redbaiter on Salient interviews Sir Roger Douglas
    # Daniel Sloan on Dicks
    # PaulL on Salient interviews Sir Roger Douglas
    # philu on Salient interviews Sir Roger Douglas
    # Redbaiter on Dicks
    # Jackson Wood on Dicks

    I dunno, maybe it’s a hangover schoolboy sense of humour.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    Yes Paul, I’m really interested in dicks. You got me there. Well done!

    Awesome.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    Shunda, there is no value in stopping them taking us over if the process of stopping them turns us into them. Our principles and values are one of the things that make us what we are. We don’t torture, we treat people humanely. As soon as we let go those principles, they have won. They have won because they make us someone other than who we are. I will never have any truck with a government that chooses to torture, because it is wrong.

    Having said that, I also note that some of the crap that people consider torture I would consider to be less than the taunting you get in the average boarding school. You know, “he pissed on my copy of the Koran” or “they played loud music at night” kind of crap. We need to be careful that we distinguish between electrodes on the testicles and toothpicks under the fingernails, v’s “he hurt my feelings” – at that point you’ve lost your grip on reality.

    And, I also note that even if you disagree with my principle-based argument, I still have a second and more powerful argument – torture doesn’t work. It isn’t my favoured argument, but it is also well proven. So then I have “it makes us something we don’t want to be”, combined with “and it doesn’t work anyway”. I’m buggered if I see how anybody could support it.

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

    Hey come on, as Craccum Editor, I feel that posting on Dicks is helping the magazine acheive our cock quota.

    So I’ve got an excuse. What’s yours?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    Me – no excuse. I carefully excised my name from the list – that’s the benefit of being the writer of history you know.

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

    “The Geneva convention… blan blah blah..”

    Hell, no wonder all you can usually muster is creepy obsessive stuff on Redbaiter. When you try something serious, you’re even more of a joke. The stuff you posted from the convention completely undermines your own position. Time wasting attention seeking moron.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    And don’t you start either ratbiter. No-one is calling you a joke or a moron, but don’t let that stop you from casting the first stone old buddy!

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

    “I’m buggered if I see how anybody could support it.”

    So a terrorist has planted a suitcase nuclear bomb somewhere within the city that houses your family. You’d let it explode before you’d torture him to discover the location and disarm the bomb. Weak and defeatist, with ideas and opinons that you are directed to hold by the mainstream media, you exemplify why the left control the debate today to the extent they do.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. roger nome (4,067 comments) says:

    heh – I’m reminded of the numerous times when DPF has lambasted people for not finding his offensive attempts at “humor” funny. “You’ve got no sense of humor” is the usual response. Indeed DPF, indeed.

    [DPF: And that is another 20 demerits. If you don't like my sense of humour you can whine about it elsewhere]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. newtestleper (19 comments) says:

    PhilipJohn – a new low, even for you. DPF’s posts which you find offensive and not funny cost nothing. AUSA’s actions, however, potentially cost students at Auckland $5,000.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    RedBaiter, lets look at your argument.

    1. Has that situation ever happened anywhere in the world? It is pointless to have hypothetical situations that just wouldn’t occur, and then use them to justify torture in situations where it clearly doesn’t work

    2. Imagine that your situation were real. You torture this guy that you have absolute 100% knowledge has planted a nuclear bomb, and you absolutely 100% know is going to go off, and you absolutely 100% know he knows where it is. Despite knowing all those things, you didn’t stop him from planting it and you don’t know where it is. So you torture him. How can you trust what he tells you? How do you know he isn’t lying? What do you actually achieve here?

    3. To me, terrorism is a police matter, not a war. Making it a war gives it status that it doesn’t deserve, and makes terrorists feel like some sort of freedom fighter instead of the common criminals and thugs that they actually are. We don’t support torture for any other crimes that people might commit, we shouldn’t support it for this either.

    If you have any interest (and I know you won’t), you could try this link:
    http://www.peterlevine.ws/mt/archives/000746.html

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. reid (16,179 comments) says:

    Yeah I’m afraid that I think anyone who defends the tactics used in the military occupation of Iraq are willfully blind. There is corruption, there is torture, there is totally illegal activity. Period. Too much evidence. All over.

    And all simply unnecessary and totally counter-productive.

    http://www.moviesfoundonline.com/daylight_robbery.php

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. djp (65 comments) says:

    gotta agree with the lefties here.

    a spade is a spade, torture is torture

    you may be too blind to see it but Japanese soldiers were convicted for waterboarding after WW2 (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170.html), these days it is called “special interrogation”

    if you think winstons dealings are shady look at the UN… who do you think funds it anyhow?

    it is sad really, our relationship with the US is too valuable so we look the other way

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

    “How do you know he isn’t lying?”

    How do YOU know he is? You damn well check it out that’s how, and if he’s lying you make the bastard suffer more.

    You, according to what you have written above, would let the bomb explode. There’s no argument that can justify that action. You cling to the feel good ideas expounded by the liberal media, and that is as deep as you think about it. You sit in your comfy armchair in your comfy house in your comfy little world insulated from the realities of terror and hate and killing and murder, and indulge yourself with your prissy little pseudo liberal media driven positions. Other men will need to face that decision, and the free world can take comfort in that, for if feelings driven twerps such as you had your way, the terrorists would be well on their way to winning.

    As for your pitifully illogical and self serving claim that such a situation would never arise, it could easily have done so in so many recent instances, where if any of the terrorist involved had been captured before the event, and forced to divulge details on the operation, it could have been stopped. (9/11 for example.)

    “To me, terrorism is a police matter, not a war.”

    Hell yeah, lets send the police to Afghanistan. Or Iraq. Should they take their finger-print gear?? Their breathalysers?? Their speed cameras? Should terrorists be given legal aid too? And trial by jury?? What’s the legal defence for nuking a complete city I wonder?? Should the 9/11 bombers be tried posthumously- on what? Disturbing the peace?? Trials were something even genuine prisoners of war during the last two world wars were not given. Y’know, I try not to be too contemptible of the pathetic effeminate weak irrational trendy lefty bullshit you pseudo-conservatives come up with, but Christ its hard.

    “If you have any interest (and I know you won’t)”

    Damn right.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    “You sit in your comfy armchair in your comfy house in your comfy little world insulated from the realities of terror and hate and killing and murder…”

    WHO’S sitting in a comfy armchair etc etc? Methinks it’s not just PaulL :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    Redbaiter, you are flat out lying. You have never once tried “ot to be too contemptible of the pathetic effeminate weak irrational trendy lefty bullshit you pseudo-conservatives come up with.”

    You sound like a bad parody of Jack Nicholson in “A Few Good Men.” You want me on that wall. You need me on that wall. Get a grip, this isn’t a movie. Torturing people is wrong, it is always wrong. If you cannot have principles, what do you have. You’re the one always on here bleating on about how the National party should have principles and stick to them. What exactly are your principles around torture? And do you only need to follow your principles when it is easy – and ignore them when it is inconvenient for them? You are a disgrace to your stated beliefs.

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

    “You are a disgrace to your stated beliefs”

    My beliefs do not include surrendering to those who would destroy everything I might hold dear. My beliefs do not allow me to protect those who would use freedom for the purpose of destroying freedom. You would let the bomb go off. You would let the totalitarians, the dictators, the murderers, the savages and the barbarians take freedom and extinguish it. You are the compromiser. ..and you have no answer to my argument. You have refused to respond to even one of the points I answered your comments with. Police against terrorists. What a fucken sick joke.

    “Torturing people is wrong, it is always wrong”.

    It is not always wrong. It saves lives. You want to stop torture, then do yourself a favour. Stop terrorism instead of aiding terrorists by repeating their propaganda for them, and thereby encouraging them to further outrages. You wet self indulgent liberals have the blood of thousands of innocents on your hands.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    “Torturing people… is not always wrong.”

    Nice!

    There you have perhaps the ultimate answer, if you’ve ever asked the question “Why is it that if I Google ‘Redbaiter’ I can find people rubbishing him and taking the piss?”

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

    “Daniel Sloan (4) –4 Says:
    July 24th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
    Hey come on, as Craccum Editor, I feel that posting on Dicks is helping the magazine acheive our cock quota.
    So I’ve got an excuse. What’s yours?”

    Hey Daniel, You’ve certainly achieved your cock quota !!!!!!!

    How about the impressionable student who’s life your going to wreck when he attempts to take you up on this?
    The diplomatic protection squad, and the secret service doesn’t fuck around. Your boy is going to have the snot beaten out of them, get convicted and imprisoned, never travel offshore again. Understand?? – You’re potentionally ruining someone’s future.

    Why don’t you just be grateful that us taxpayers are providing you with a university and interest free loans to pursue your education – and use it accordingly.

    (Like learning to spell “achieve” you fuckwit)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    Bullshit baiter. There are plenty of ways to combat terrorism that don’t involve torture or other infringements on civil liberties. My principles tell me that is always wrong. I am surprised that yours don’t tell you that.

    As for police v’s military. The place to combat terrorists is on our own territory. Terrorists in other countries do not need action by us – they need action by their own governments. Taking 9/11 as an example, the actual terrorism was incredibly inept. It could easily have been handled by a vaguely competent law enforcement body. This is not an army that we are fighting, it is a vague collection of people who want to commit crime. I am sorry you cannot see that, but in your constant talking up of the threat you give them credibility that helps them to recruit.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. reid (16,179 comments) says:

    The only people who’ve benefited from the tactics used in the Iraq occupation are Iran, Al-Qaeda and Halliburton.

    Torture has played into the Islamist’s hands. Everything the US has done in Guantanamo and Iraq has played into the terrorist’s hands.

    It’s like the ‘war on terror’ is being run by someone who wants America to be attacked. There is no wisdom, no strategy, no benefit to their tactics. The military are doing their job – it’s got little to do with them, although the criminals they’ve been recruiting to make up the numbers, that commit the rapes etc we’ve seen in papers, need to be expunged.

    But the war has been lost by the politicians. The diplomatic front is a total failure, responsibility for which starts and ends with Bush. The torture and other policies that emanate from the previous and current Defence Secretary do nothing but foment dissent, and why wouldn’t they? Wouldn’t you be a bit pissed, if your mother and son was taken? (Don’t give me childish bullshit the only people it happens to are genuine terrorists, what planet are you on?) Finally of course we have the extensive corruption ala the VP, who has engineered no-bid military contracts (which incidentally supplied sub-standard equipment and charged top-dollar to Uncle Sam for it). The latest rort of course are the no-bid oil contracts, coincidentally let to – guess who – Bush and Cheney’s mates.

    If you really think this is a genuine effort to fight terrorism, ask yourself why you get such magnificent propaganda own-goals such as the picture of the hooded man with wires. That picture will haunt the US for years. You have to ask yourself why they ever posed that picture in the first place – anyone with a double let alone triple-digit IQ knew the effect it would have if it got out.

    The whole affair is as tragically transparent as Hitler blaming the invasion of Poland on an attack on a radio station.

    And when America is attacked, which seems apparently to be the objective, guess who’ll be blamed? They’ll probably find a copy of the Quran and a burnt Iranian passport in the radioactive ruins. Won’t that be convenient, notwithstanding the fact that only one ME country would benefit from the US reaction to such an atrocity.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Paul
    You sound like an appologist for people who crash planes into buildings.
    These people can not be reasoned with over a nice cup of “Herb” tea.
    You rationalise everything away as if these nutters can be reasoned with, and they can’t be, history has proven that over and over again.
    How do you know that other acts of terrorism havn’t been prevented by the USA in the war on terror?
    Your arguments seem very similar to failed ideas of the past and as the old saying goes, history repeats.
    Round and round the bloody mulberry bush we go.

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

    “The only people who’ve benefited from the tactics used in the Iraq occupation are Iran, Al-Qaeda and Halliburton.”

    Zzzzzzz…

    Leftist/communist tripe believed only by dumbfuck leftists or the insane.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (783 comments) says:

    um Shunda
    the people who crashed the planes into the buildings are dead
    torturing other people aint going change what they did

    PaulL
    hows that banging your head against a brick wall working out for you
    give up man
    i agree with you
    but Redbaiter is the most moralistic person without morals you might ever meet

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

    “How do you know that other acts of terrorism havn’t been prevented by the USA in the war on terror?”

    They have, but limp wristed Paul L and his commie mates (like the shrivelled one) will deny it emphatically.

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

    Paul
    I have to agree with Shunda.
    You say: “There are plenty of ways to combat terrorism that don’t involve torture or other infringements on civil liberties”.

    I don’t know so much. These people use civil liberties against the western world.
    I’m afraid if I had lost a family member in any of these terrorist acts (and I nearly lost a close friend in Bali) I would use whatever means available to me to prevent it happening again. If that meant infringing the ‘civil liberties’ of a few suspicious Muslims then so be it

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Short shriveled and slightly to the left.

    Typical dismissal of real debate on this issue as per usual.
    round and round we go.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (783 comments) says:

    sheesh Redbaiter
    PaulL is far from a commie
    so Im I mind you but in your head almost everyone is a commie

    well I guess we could stop all acts of muslim terrorism if we just wipe out all the muslims
    then we could definitely say that we stopped numerous attacks
    I guess its just where you decide to draw the line

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. reid (16,179 comments) says:

    “If that meant infringing the ‘civil liberties’ of a few suspicious Muslims then so be it”

    But it’s not just a few suspicious Muslims, is it Patrick?

    The US completely squandered the enormous goodwill it had after 911, by the use of not merely injudicious but completely insane and counter-productive tactics of which torture is merely one, until you now have the current situation in the ME which is extremely precarious and volatile.

    That could have been completely avoided, and it wasn’t rocket science to do so.

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

    “well I guess we could stop all acts of muslim terrorism if we just wipe out all the muslims”

    You’re perceptions are so embarrasingly juvenile I have to wonder what you’re doing here. You cannot read, you cannot write, you cannot understand, you’re ignorant (especially of the difference between Islamism and Islam) and you’re boring. In fact you’re everything that so frequently identifies a leftist. Only worse. Can’t you find a kid’s blog somewhere? You’ll find the comments much more suited to your intellectual capabilities. (and take that other try hard little idiot RRM with you..)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left (783 comments) says:

    I guess I just dont have it in me to hide my vague answers in amongst rhetoric diatribe.
    I envy your fufilling life Redbaiter.
    Im off to bed to snuggle up to my wife.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Short Shriveled and Slightly to the Left.

    ” well I guess we could stop all acts of muslim terrorism if we just wipe out all the muslims
    then we could definitely say that we stopped numerous attacks
    I guess its just where you decide to draw the line”

    Or should we let the Muslims wipe out the liberals?, because thats the part of the western world they hate more than any other!!
    When they talk about the infidels do you think they mean Charlie church and his christian mates?
    No flippin way, they hate us because of our “sins” we drink, smoke, don’t cover our women, and are sexually depraved.
    All they see is a culture of “sin” being exported to their lands and that is why they justify jihad against it.
    You can NOT reason with people who will never tollerate these things in the country they live in.

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

    “But it’s not just a few suspicious Muslims, is it Patrick?”

    Well, as much as the left would join in if it were the Exclusive Bretheren – I cannot see who else is involved?

    Can you explain the solution reid? – because for the life of me I can only see one solution. – fire with fire.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    So, can anyone give me a single example of a time that torture has successfully extracted useful information? Of course, that information is all classified, but it must exist, else why would we torture. Right? I can give you a whole list of badness, other than some theoretical “ticking bomb” scenario there is nothing at all that you can give me in favour of torture.

    My question is this – who exactly are you prepared to torture? Because I can assure you that there are innocent people being tortured. Are you OK with that so long as their skin is a different colour? Is it OK if it is someone male, between the ages of 20 and 45? Is it OK if it is male between 13 and 70? Is it OK if it is a 9 year old boy? Is it OK if it is a women? A little girl? Do they have to be foreign, is it OK for me to torture innocent NZers? Only if they are born overseas? Only if they have a funny skin colour? What about your neighbour – can I torture them? Can I torture your wife? Your son? Your daughter?

    It’s all well and good to say lets go torture “them”. But sooner or later you will realise that them are also us – the bloody government doesn’t distinguish. You with all your ranting about the inadequacies of government, but you are OK to give them the power to torture people they “suspect.” Do you reckon they might suspect you? With your turn of rhetoric I could probably convince all sorts of people that you are a danger to society – not someone just wishing the revolution was going to come. Shall I give the Labour government the power to torture you until you give up information on how and when you are going to start the revolution?

    You really have no idea what you are ranting in favour of, as usual you are just mouthing off. How about you go away and get some internal consistency to your arguments, then come back and play with the big kids.

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

    “How about you go away and get some internal consistency to your arguments, then come back and play with the big kids.”

    The post that accompanies the above remark is just so full of rubbish I wouldn’t know where to start. Sorry, I don’t have the time or interest in dealing in depth with such superficial self serving diversionary rubbish.

    “So, can anyone give me a single example of a time that torture has successfully extracted useful information?”

    There are numerous examples. That you don’t know even this fact shows you don’t have a clue and are just repeating left liberal mainstream media sourced platitudes in lieu of real argument. As always.

    “who exactly are you prepared to torture?”

    Any terrorist who is withholding information that will save the lives of innocents or soldiers.

    “Are you OK with that so long as their skin is a different colour?”

    What the hell has skin colour got to do with the argument?? I’ll tell you. Nothing. Its just another shamelessly stupid attempt to shift the argument on to grounds you feel you can profit from- ie Redbaiter is a racist because he supports torture of terrorists. Completely irrational. You’re a complete idiot, and the rest of your nonsensical off the issue rant proves this irrefutably.

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

    Paul
    I think the point you are seriously missing when you ask who can be tortured (and torturing kids if fairly extreme) is I don’t teach my kids hate from childbirth. I don’t indoctrinate my kids into the destruction of other free-living nations. I don’t give my kids an AK47 assault rifle. I don’t strap explosives to my kids, send them off to a bus full of innocent civilians and tell them they will become martyrs.

    “But sooner or later you will realise that them are also us – the bloody government doesn’t distinguish”

    Problem is Paul, they don’t bloody distinguish who they are blowing up. As long as you are western you are a target. You can sit back in NZ and be reasonably safe, or you can travel overseas and take your chances. I like to travel and take my chances. But rest assured I am truely grateful a country like the USA is there to protect the rest of us from many threats.

    Perhaps you can you give me another solution?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Paul
    I personally don’t condone torture, it is something that is one of the worst aspects of warfare, however I can’t possibly know how it feels for those who lost loved ones in 911, and if I was in those circumstances and people could have avoided it with a bit of waterboarding, I don’t know.
    The nature of the idealogy behind terrorism makes it difficult to combat, but trying to reason with them is obviously a waste of time.
    How was the USA supposed to react?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. francis (712 comments) says:

    Some of you guys really should read more widely. DailyKos arguments from 2005 aren’t really particularly relevant to today’s Iraq. Even Obama knows that.

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

    Dearest Patrick;

    I’m not at work, so I can misspell things all I please. And secondly, my position is ex-officio and I don’t actually have a vote on the executive, so if you’re looking to somehow blame me for this, you are sorely mistaken. I was not at the meeting, I did not hear the discussion and the first I was aware of it was after I got the same press release everyone else in the MSM probably did. I’m sure I probably am a fuckwit, but it’s not for the reaons you seem to think so.

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

    “I’m sure I probably am a fuckwit”

    The tortured context certainly supports that proposition. “Sure I’m probably????” Yeah well OK.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. capills_enema (194 comments) says:

    Colours in the rainbow? There are numerous examples. There are so many goddam examples that capills_enema isn’t going to even lower himself to naming any of them, yeah? So stop asking capills_enema those commie questions, cos capills_enema ain’t playing your game… he’s not gonna say the colours, right? He’s not going to say red. Or indigo. Or. Erm. Violet.

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

    Dearest Daniel;

    Please accept my sincere apologies for holding you responsible. Your post appeared to accept responsibility as “Craccup Editor” but in hindsight I see you were also a bystander.

    I trust your responsible newsprint will no doubt point out the dangers of the AUSA proposition?

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

    To be honest, it probably would have been far more poignant to issue a trespass notice against her and say she was not welcome on AUSA property. But I guess they want attention and figured this was the best way to do it.

    As for running the story, the AUSA press release only reached us today, which is also unfortunately printing day. So we missed it this time around. And with distribution next Monday and her visit being this weekend, we couldn’t really run anything anyway – if the motion was passed last week, we would have been able to get it in the issue that came out Monday just gone.

    Regardless, confronting an American dignitary is probably a bad idea – I don’t know what the rules are for goons (I presume they would need approval to carry weapons in NZ) but they probably don’t need them to do their jobs effectively.

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

    “Why is it that if I Google ‘Redbaiter’”

    You really are obsessed aren’t you? Maybe you should get with Enema and compare notes.

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

    “(I presume they would need approval to carry weapons in NZ) ”

    I understand that is a prerequisite and trust the AUSA will accept responsibility for any mishaps? I suppose the only person who would be grateful to them would be Winston Peters.

    Redbaiter -you now appear to have 2 stalkers ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. OECD rank 22 kiwi (2,823 comments) says:

    US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice does a fine job. At least the current Bush administration is a lot better than the corrupt and incompetent Clinton administration. Thankfully Bill couldn’t help his “wife” get the “Jackass” party nomination.

    The Elephant party wins ever time.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. President Loudmouth (4 comments) says:

    Thank goodness your compulsory Bloggers Union (NZBU) have also put aside significant resources for anybody who can find Jafapete/Roger Nome/Idiot/Savant and give them a good wash. I mean with real soap and water.

    I/S especially. That boy is just one big waste of space. I can’t believe he is a member of my Union. He needs some serious re-education. He needs our compulsion more than others.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. capills_enema (194 comments) says:

    “Maybe you should get with Enema and compare notes.”

    Enema this, enema that. Why don’t you stop cyberstalking capills_enema, you creepy fuck? You never know, you might start to contribute something other than fuckheaded blog posts to the universe, you layabout communist shit.

    capills_enema’s not impressed with your antics, to say the least.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. gnadsmasher (47 comments) says:

    This was an excellent publicity stunt. It raises consciousness and generates debate about important issues of policy and responsibility that otherwise would be left unattended. The comments on this thread–other than the usual flame wars–are illustrative of the point.
    Interestingly, it was Omar Hamed, AUSA International Affairs officer, leader of Auckland University Students for Justice in Palestine, GPJA member and Urewera 16 defendant, who came up with the idea (David Do was just the pitch man). Omar is pals with Harmeet Sooden (of Iraq hostage and deportation from Israel fame) and Sahar Ghomphour, the person who orchestrated the leaking of Paul Buchanan’s infamous email and who led the claims that he was a racist CIA/Zionist operative. Omar was also involved in a similar ploy to have a visiting Israeli general arrested some time ago (which actually found some traction in court, but which ultimately was overruled by the Attorney Genera).
    However, even if the reward offer were serious it will not prosper for a simple reason: Ms. Rice has diplomatic immunity. Unlike Kradic, Pinochet, the Israeli general or Henry Kissinger (all of whom had or have warrants out for their arrest), Ms. Rice arrives in NZ on official diplomatic business and hence is covered by immunity protocols. The other individuals mentioned were/are private citizens long removed from their government positions when charged with complicity in war crimes.
    And then of course there is the arse-kicking factor should anyone try to Minto their way into her face…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. President Loudmouth (4 comments) says:

    Slow news day, AUSA executive officer has nothing to do while sitting pretty on taxpayer dollars so creates mischief. YAWN. Omar sounds like a thoroughly annoying person, well connected with loons and nuts. What sort of employment is he seeking when he leaves AUSA – if he actually leaves?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Duxton (607 comments) says:

    The mischievous part of me hopes that someone with a name like Harmet Sooden, Omar Hamed or John Minto tries it.

    The news coverage of her Secret Service escorts double-tapping a scumbag through the head would be wonderful entertainment over a cold weekend.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. reid (16,179 comments) says:

    “Can you explain the solution reid? – because for the life of me I can only see one solution. – fire with fire.”

    Patrick, if the US stopped supporting Israel and became a transparently neutral player in the ME, you would find ME public sentiment changing overnight.

    By that I don’t mean throw Israel to the wolves. I mean that the US should use its superpower status as a neutral player not a sycophantic supporter of the most aggressive nation in the ME. Tell Israel it won’t get any more military or economic aid until it plays a straight hand with the Palestinians, Lebanon and Syria. People who think those nations are the aggressor aren’t reading the situation correctly.

    Chances of that happening are almost nil, given the extraordinary influence of pro-Israel US citizens over the entire US political system, including both Congress and the Executive and crossing both Dem and Repub lines, but that’s what needs to happen.

    It’s not just Israel of course it’s also the US support for such anti-democratic ME regimes such as Saudi Arabia which strangely western people hardly ever comment on.

    Secondly, people need to stop thinking as they seem to do, that everyone in a Muslim nation is a terrorist. Such a proposition is extraordinarily naive, but newsflash, they’re just like you and I. The vast vast majority want a quiet peaceful prosperous life. Look into Iran for example and you’ll see a different nation to that portrayed by western media.

    Unfortunately, people who live in regions that have trillions in natural reserves always seem to get screwed over. Oddly, the media who are supposed to expose such dynamics instead act to encourage the line that allows malevolent players to continue. If you look into the ownership of said media including for example, Reuters and AP, you start to understand why.

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

    Reid, c’mon. you’re taking the piss – surely? “Israel -the most aggressive nation in the ME” lol. “Saudi Arabia= bad but Syria = good” – you’ve got top be taking the piss?

    “Look into Iran for example and you’ll see a different nation to that portrayed by western media”. Maybe if you look into Iran you’ll see a different nation to the cruel and murderous dictatorship they lived under with Saddam

    You’re trying to tell me that if the USA stops giving military or economic aid to Israel then Al Qaeda and the Taliban would simply wrap up shop ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. Dr Robotnik (533 comments) says:

    I totally support the students trying to arrest Condablahblah Rice.

    I hate students. They give me an itchy trigger finger and hopefully Condi’s men with guns and dark glasses will deal to the pricks.

    Thank you.

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

    Sorry, should have read
    “Maybe if you look into Iraq you’ll see a different nation to the cruel and murderous dictatorship they lived under with Saddam’

    (I was just laughing too much)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    I’ll pay 20 bucks to anyone who is willing to go smack some sense into into these self impressed school kids who think they matter in spite of the massive evidence to the contrary.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Dr Robotnik (533 comments) says:

    Murray, you tight prick.

    Unless of course that’s 20 bucks for each shot landed?

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

    Let me see if I’ve got this straight. Redbaiter and his chest-thumping chickenhawk mates support the United States’ use of torture, but not al-Qaeda’s use of torture. Is it only nation states that Redbaiter thinks should be able to torture? Ie, does he support the right of the USA’s ally Saudi Arabia to torture people? Or is it only Western nation states that he thinks should be able to torture people? So many questions. I think he favours a double standard.

    As for whether the invasion of Iraq was illegal or not, shouldn’t this be easy to answer? What does internation law say about it?

    ps, I feel sorry for this man: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dilawar_(human_rights_victim)

    Murdered by the United States military.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Murray (8,844 comments) says:

    I assumed I would the point man of a massive public fund Doc. It appears to be $20 more than you’ve put up so far :o)

    Raise enough money and I’ll show you a cool trick using $500 worth of fence posts, some rope, a protractor, tangent tables and an 8lb bowling ball.

    Promise I’ll only hit them once.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Dr Robotnik (533 comments) says:

    Hey, I’m just the contractor out ot make an honest buck ;)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. unaha-closp (1,155 comments) says:

    Naive idealism is endearing amoung the young.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. toms (301 comments) says:

    I don’t know why bother having a link to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights on you homepage Mr. Farrar, its rank hypocrisy to criticise the AUSA and then pretend you somehow support (amongst other things):

    “Article 5.
    No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. akif (1 comment) says:

    “All the more reason one should have true voluntary membership of student associations – no back door funding deals from universities as they have in Auckland and Canterbury. Let them be totally reliant on persuading students to hand over their money, and see how long such idiocy lasts?”

    Feel free to criticise AUSA’s policies with regards to the citizen’s arrest. But I think it’s critical that you don’t amalgamate a range of issues into a rant. While AUSA does get money from the University of Auckland, it is specifically for certain services (advocacy, class rep system, club grants etc) that are provided. The University does its very best to scrutinise how this money is spent and it can only be used for the approved activities.
    So no matter what your stance is on apprehending war criminals, rest assured no university funding will be used to in this event.

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

    RRM:

    “Article 4
    A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

    1. Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.
    2. Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:
    (a) That of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) That of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) That of carrying arms openly;
    (d) That of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    3. Members of regular armed forces who profess allegiance to a government or an authority not recognized by the Detaining Power.

    So wearing a uniform has nothing to do with it. Civilised behaviour towards your fellow human beings has everything to do with it.”

    Oh NICE obfuscation there, RRM. So Al Quaeda FULFILS the conditions of Article 4 of the Geneva conventions do they, regardless of whether or not I was entitled to simplify the matter down to one of whether uniforms are worn?

    How low can the Left go in acting as apologists and aiders and abetters of the enemies of their own civilisation?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    “Oh NICE obfuscation there, RRM.”

    You what??

    Remember Phil you posed the question: “What the F. does the Geneva Conventions say about the “rights” of “combatants” who don’t wear uniforms?”

    I attempted a reasonably direct answer to that. Somehow that’s “obfuscating”???!!!??

    For someone who pulls up a lot of great long quotations from other political theorists, pastes them in here and entreats people to PLEASE READ them, you don’t read very well yourself sometimes…

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

    Radar, you say:
    “his chest-thumping chickenhawk mates support the United States’ use of torture, but not al-Qaeda’s use of torture”

    I support the police use of Tasers where necessary, but I certainly don’t support the Mongrel Mob being able to do likewise.

    Makes sense to me, unless of course you see Al-Qaeda as the good guys?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. number six (1 comment) says:

    || You’re trying to tell me that if the USA stops giving military or economic aid to Israel then Al Qaeda and the Taliban would simply wrap up shop ?

    Every society has extremists, but if the above did happen (along with removing the US presence in Saudi Arabia, getting out of Iraq, applying the NPT consistently with regards Iran, etc) the extreme element would lose their fundamental “cause” – their reason for existing in the first place. And without a cause there would be no recruits.

    You say it might be time to fight ‘fire with fire’ and I can definitely sympathise with your reasoning. But fires are ignited, so what lit their wick, as it were?

    There are two solutions that I can see to this problem:
    First – we do as you suggested, fight fire with fire and not only become the people we’re fighting, but probably engulf the whole world in our fight.

    Second – play the problems in the ME with a straight bat. Engage with the people there to understand what the real grievances are … and there can’t be anyone, anywhere who doesn’t agree that there are some genuine grievances, surely. Address the concerns in a mutually acceptable way. Leave each other alone to get on with our lives.

    Obviously the second way isn’t as sexy as the first, and it would be a radical change from how the situation is currently addressed. Hmm, bit tragic really that the peaceful solution would come across as the most radical.

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

    Whilst on the subject of terrorists lets look at who organised this $5,000 reward for Condoleezza Rice?

    Amongst others, AUSA international affairs officer Omar Hamed.

    Who is Omar Hamed?,

    He’s an anarchist political activist He was born in Greece to European and Palestinian parents. He has also been involved in the Palestinian rights group Students for Justice in Palestine and helps run an activist social center in Auckland called A Space Inside. He is also a member of the Auckland Anarchist Collective.
    One of seventeen people arrested in police raids that occurred in October 2007, it is alleged he was in possession of firearms in the Ruatoki Valley. He is currently facing three charges of illegal possession of a firearm and one of unlawful possession of Molotov cocktails.

    and Omar is saying he doesn’t want Condi in NZ? What a fucken cheek!

    (I only hope Omar attempts the arrest himself)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Reid
    “Look into Iran for example and you’ll see a different nation to that portrayed by western media.”

    Just read in the local rag that Iran has just sentenced a number of sexual infidels to death by stoning (not the smoking form)
    They bury them up to their waist and then hiff rocks at them.
    But don’t worry my liberal friends, Iranian law states that no one is allowed to chuck a rock large enough to kill in one blow.
    The infidel will have plenty of time to think of their family and loved ones as their skull is slowly fractured after blow after blow of “politically correct ” sized rocks.

    Keep living the dream guys
    keep living the dream

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    Shunter;

    Just because someone criticizes US actions in the middle east, it does not follow that they support any or all actions of the middle eastern governments. You are going to have to learn to understand this.

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

    Christopher Hitchens had a go at waterboarding:
    http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/08/hitchens200808?printable=true&currentPage=all

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

    Number 6. You are trying to tell me that these two terrorist organisations, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban are only structured to remove USA influence in the ME?
    OMG, where do they find you people? Your either joining reid in the wind-up or are just very naïve?

    Whilst they are structured to rid the Muslim world (sharia law) of any non-Muslim influences, such as concepts like socialism or nationalism their intolerant of other lifestyles requires them to spread the Muslim faith across as far as they can.

    Sorry buddy, these organisations are a cancer. Leaving them alone wont make them go away

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    I am sorry RRM
    But you and your pc buddies need to go study history a little bit and then see whether your approach has ever worked in the real world.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    Shunter;

    Or you can continue to believe that us lefties all support Al Qaeda and the Taliban, if that makes you feel good. It’s no skin off my nose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    So RRM
    When these nutters crashed planes into buildings was your attitude……..”I don’t agree with what they did, but I understand why they did it”, like so many other left leaning types?
    Because if it was, that makes you an appologist for fundamentalist islamic terrorism.

    You make out that I and anyone else who disagrees with you are unenlightened and foolish, yet the liberal idea of foreign policy consists of “WAR bad, PEACE good”
    You will have to forgive me for thinking that any one who believes this is profoundly naive and foolish.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    No Shunter that was not my attitude – my attitude was the US were completely justified in sorting out whoever was responsible for attacking their people on their soil.

    My point is twofold:

    (1) The US leadership lose credibility in my eyes whenever they say “But those people did that terrible thing to us” while they are committing large-scale human rights violations themselves against prisoners that have not been tried or convicted of anything.

    (2) You have got to get it into your stereotyping, black-and-white, them-or-us mindset that people criticise the Guantanamo Bay detention centre and the interrogation methods because they think THOSE THINGS ARE WRONG. Not because they think 9/11 was fair or justified or a good thing. Not because they are “Taliban sympathisers” or “apologists for fundamentalist Islamic terrorism.”

    And lastly, OH YES I MOST DEFINITELY believe that war is bad and peace is good.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Well, plenty have called him a “dick” or worse on this blog before, and no doubt will again, but here’s a media release just out from Green MP Keith Locke on this issue:

    It is a constitutional affront for the Police to threaten students wishing to conduct a citizen’s arrest of visiting US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Green Party MP Keith Locke says.

    The Auckland District Commander, Superintendent Brett England, has issued a press release vowing to stop any such arrest.

    “The Police should stick to security issues, not get involved in politics,” Mr Locke, Green Party Police and Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, says.

    “The job of the Police is to prevent harm coming to Ms Rice, not stopping a student from initiating legal proceedings through a citizen’s arrest.

    “It is at least arguable that a legal case against Ms Rice might stand up. The Police should not be taking one side or the other.

    “Under the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000, proceedings can be taken against people visiting New Zealand who have been responsible for torture, or the launching of attacks which cause civilian casualties ‘clearly excessive’ to military objectives.

    “It can certainly be argued that both these things have happened in Iraq, under the Secretary of State’s watch. Also, there are reports that previously, when she was the President’s national security advisor, Ms Rice chaired official meetings where ‘enhanced interrogation’ or torture methods were approved. The Bush administration has yet to categorically rule out the use of all forms of torture.

    “Our Government, for its part, should point out to Ms Rice the contradiction between her tough stance against dictators in Zimbabwe, the Sudan and Burma, and the serious erosion of human rights in her own jurisdiction, not least at the Guantanamo Bay detention centre.”

    I think Keith makes a valid point. Although Ms Rice may be able to invoke diplomatic immunity to avoid any proceedings, there would be some embarassment in doing so. And she can always rely on the tort of malicious prosecution to take legal action for damages herself against any prosecution brought without a substantive basis in evidence and law.

    Note s 13 of the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000:

    13. Attorney-General’s consent to prosecutions required

    (1) Proceedings for an offence against section 9 or section 10 or section 11 may not be instituted in any New Zealand court without the consent of the Attorney-General.

    (2) Despite subsection (1), a person charged with an offence against section 9 or section 10 or section 11 may be arrested, or a warrant for his or her arrest may be issued and executed, and the person may be remanded in custody or on bail, even though the consent of the Attorney-General to the institution of a prosecution for the offence has not been obtained, but no further proceedings can be taken until that consent has been obtained.

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

    “they think THOSE THINGS ARE WRONG.”

    ..and they think that for two reasons;

    1) They’re irrational feel good ignorant narrow minded low IQ dumbfucks led down the garden path by leftist propagandists in the mainstream media. (NY Times etc)

    2) They seek political advantage over the forces they perceive as “the right wing capitalist war machine”, and in typical sneering elitist leftist fashion, don’t care if they betray their own troops or their own culture or their own civilizations whilst so doing.

    Amazing how these communist idiots repeat their simplistic platitudes as if all of the discussion that precedes never occurred. Its as if each day they wake up with exactly the same degree of understanding of life as they did the previous day. An endless loop of blind stupidity blind ignorance and staggeringly false propaganda.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. RRM (9,762 comments) says:

    Staggeringly false propaganda?

    So the Guantanamo prisoners actually HAVEN’T been imprisoned for 7 years without trial then?

    And speak for yourself. I know why I think what I think. But “Disagrees with me = Communist” seems to have been well and truly indoctrinated into you by something or someone :-)

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

    Nothing worth seriously responding to as usual. Just the usual weak trend following uninformed commie shit. As if people ascertained to be threats to security being locked up without trial, such as POWs or overseas Nationals or terrorists interned as they were from the Boer war and WW1 right thru to WW2, is some kind of recent event. BTW- Here’s a hint. Skip the ingratiating smilies. You’re never the least amusing. You’re ignorant and boring and your most stand out personality characteristic is an inflated idea of your own importance. If you were ever capable of dealing with reality, you’d know that.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Graeme Edgeler (3,279 comments) says:

    toad, quoting Keith Locke:

    The job of the Police is to prevent harm coming to Ms Rice, not stopping a student from initiating legal proceedings through a citizen’s arrest.

    One does not initiate legal proceeding through a citizens arrest. One arrests someone through a citizens arrest. One initiates a criminal proceeding by laying an information alleging the commission of an offence.

    Moreover, and I’m suprised I/S doesn’t stand up for this, but the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act protects all New Zealanders from arbitrary arrest. For an arrest to avoid being arbitrary it must be lawful, and there is no lawful basis for this arrest. The Crimes Act recognises ‘citizens arrests’ to some extent, but this isn’t one of them. Condoleezza Rice has a right not to be assaulted and not to be subject to arbitrary arrest or kidnapping. A citizens arrest of her would be an illegal and arbitrary detention and a kidnapping, and if the police aren’t here to prevent kidnappings, then we can pretty much get rid of them.

    A complaint to the police is a reasonable cause, and complaint that the police have ignored it is reasonable, but supporting vigilante kidnappings is quite another.

    If someone whom you consider to be a war criminal is in New Zealand then this:

    http://norightturn.blogspot.com/2006/12/protecting-war-criminal.html

    is the approriate way to go about it.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. Patrick Starr (3,675 comments) says:

    Oh Toad, I gave you slightly more credit than backing Locke on putting students in harm in this way.
    I also note Lockes association with the accused terrorist Omar Hamed from AUSA who proposed this kidnapping. Typical pro terrorist – anti Americanism from the Greens again

    Locke states; “The job of the Police is to prevent harm coming to Ms Rice, not stopping a student from initiating legal proceedings through a citizen’s arrest”
    Well anyone approaching Rice will be considered a potential threat and if the Secret Service are also protecting her you may see some students with a new form of cap

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

    Locke is a US hater from way back. All these communist zealots can see is the US as a symbol of capitalism, and they seek its destruction, its defeat, and they want it removed as an obstacle to their goal of a totalitarian socialist global utopia. It is this objective that drives them to seek alliances with terrorist groups. Its notable that these terrorist scum the left have succeeded in freeing from Guantanamo have taken up arms again and returned to their cells and killed allied soldiers. These people are treasonists. They’re also too stupid to know that if the scum they support ever do succeed in defeating the free world, the very first sector of society they’ll next start hunting down are the liberals and the leftists. Their pathetic bleating about “war bad peace good” will do them a tonne of good then.

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

    All right, to clear the way through RRM’s continued pedantry and obfuscation, I repeat:

    Al Qaeda and the people locked up at Guantanamo are NOT covered by Article 4 of the Geneva Conventions. RRM posted the detail above and anyone with half a brain who can read can see that these terrorist types are “illegal combatants”. That is the best term by which to describe them. If the international community doesn’t like it, they can re-do those conventions to cover the whole gamut of anybody who operates behind the lines, in civvies, with concealed weapons, with no recognisable “sign”, who use “human shields” of their own side, etc, etc, etc. Now I WONDER WHY that has never been the intention of any International agreements like the Geneva Accords?

    But of course, the hate-America Left will lie, smear, and fabricate their “case” against whoever they will. These (expletive deleted) Commie Quislings shouldn’t even get to frame the argument in the terms that has gone down even on this blog. Their stated intentions re Condi Rice are about as valid as those of illegal paramilitary thugs who did the Nazis’ bidding in the years leading up to their ultimate seizure of power, and they belong in jail if they try anything on. That Keith Locke (expletive deleted) is a disgrace to any democratic nation’s electoral system. And you, too, Toad, if that posting was serious, are a disgrace.

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

    I often wonder which of the two current commie Greens I detest the most. Komrade Keith Locke, or Mad Sue Bradford?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgler said: The Crimes Act recognises ‘citizens arrests’ to some extent, but this isn’t one of them.

    Okay, Graeme, what about s 35 of the Crimes Act 1961:

    35. Arrest of persons found committing certain crimes

    Every one is justified in arresting without warrant—

    (a) Any person whom he finds committing any offence against this Act for which the maximum punishment is not less than 3 years’ imprisonment:

    (b) Any person whom he finds by night committing any offence against this Act.

    Now, normally, that provision would apply to someone the person undertaking the arrest had witnessed or subsequently discovered to have been committing an offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years or more.

    But I think it is strongly legally arguable, in relation to offences under the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000, that “finds committing any offence” can also apply to circumstances where someone has had prima facie evidence of an offence commotted outside of New Zealand, but has not had the opportunity to arrest them until they enter New Zealand.

    I’m not proclaiming legal certainty over this, but just asserting that it is strongly legally arguable. And there is overseas precedent – for example, the Israeli arrest of Mordechai Vanunu, which was more extreme because, unlike the proposed arrest of Rice, was actually conducted on soil outside Israeli jurisdiction. Mind you, I have no expretise in Israeli domestic law – it may be much more liberal than ours in terms of international jurisdiction re arrest.

    Graeme – if you have any case law, either domestically or internationally, that would suggest I’m wrong, then post the links to it.

    Unlike the likes of Redbaiter, I’m always prepared to concede I’m wrong if presented with unrefutable evidence, but in this instance, I still think anyone attempting to arrest Rice under the criminal provisions of the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 has at least an arguable, and probably strongly arguable, case that such an action is lawful.

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

    Look, Graeme Edgeler, stop giving people like “Toad” and Keith Locke and the AUSA the dignity and credibility that you do by taking them seriously on their terms. Look into their alleged “case” and it collapses like a pack of cards. The USA and George W. and Condi Rice are not guilty of any “crimes” that these hate-America (expletive deleted) say they are in the first place. Why be so thick as to get sucked in by this outright Quisling propaganda? Can you read the Geneva Conventions Article 4 kindly posted above by RRM, and can you see that the Al Quaeda types picked up in Afghanistan and in similar situations are NOT covered? Why take the word of the likes of Keith Locke and “toad”?

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

    This is just another CLASSIC situation like we were talking about on another thread, how David Horowitz says it, that the Left are masters at framing the debate in a “when-did-you-stop-beating-your-wife” manner and decent but stupid conservatives and “moderates” just bumble away arguing the wrong point.

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

    As usual, Redbaiter is one of the few others NOT being sucked in:

    # Redbaiter (3244) +0 Says:
    July 25th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    “Nothing worth seriously responding to as usual. Just the usual weak trend following uninformed commie shit. As if people ascertained to be threats to security being locked up without trial, such as POWs or overseas Nationals or terrorists interned as they were from the Boer war and WW1 right thru to WW2, is some kind of recent event……..”

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

    Sadly, got to go for a few hours, hope there’s some other non-lefties with some intelligence, knowledge, and spine performing anti-commie sentry duty on this thread……….

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

    Toad, surely the words “whom he finds committing any offence against this Act” must stand out and poke you in the eye?

    Firstly you haven’t “found” her doing anything, secondly what you allege she has done in not against “this Act” – (the NZ Crimes Act)

    To ‘find’ someone committing the offence is ‘caught in the act of.’

    This weekend the only offence Condi could be caught in the act of committing is the company she will keep on this visit – Clark & Peters

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Hey, PhilBest, I’m trying to have a serious debate about the law here with Graeme Edgeler, because I think such debates are useful in the interest public policy and jurisprudence.

    You just come here with an “All the way with the USA” attitude, and don’t want to debate anything on the basis of either the evidence or the law. Get a grip, mate! Let’s conduct our discussion here on the basis of arguemnt based on evidence, law, and reasoned argument, not blatant bigotry, as you seem to do.

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

    “and decent but stupid conservatives and “moderates” just bumble away arguing the wrong point.”

    I don’t know why the ideologically treasonist left are granted a milligram of credibility when everything they say and do is so clearly flawed. The pro-freedom right as a political force must change strategy if they’re ever going to stop losing. In any kind of rational and free world, it is the big government left who should be on the back foot. Hell, its not as if its difficult to defeat them logically. Most leftist propositions are so idiotic they can be dealt with in three sentences or less. There just seems to be such an inexplicable and chronic lack of information and attitude in New Zealand. Limp and turgid, the majority of the population gulp down the leftist kool-ade like lemmings, so blind to the upcoming precipice. I’m always reminded of Alexander Solzenitzen’s words-

    —————————————–

    “We have placed too much hope in political and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life.”

    “At what exact point, then, should one resist? When one’s belt is taken away. When one is ordered to face into a corner? When one crosses the threshold of one’s home? . . . .”

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? . . .” (they had no guns)

    “. . . After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you’d be cracking the skull of a cut throat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur”what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked? The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!”

    “If . . . if . . . We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation. . . . We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    ———————————————-

    NZers- they don’t love freedom enough.

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

    “As usual, Redbaiter is one of the few others NOT being sucked in:”

    Patty Starr is a bit of a champion. Witty too. Stick it up them Patrick.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Patrick, please read s 5(1) of the Crimes Act”

    5. Application of Act

    (1) This Act applies to all offences for which the offender may be proceeded against and tried in New Zealand.

    As I said before, the interpretation of the term “finds committing any offence against this Act” is legally arguable, but I don’t think the application of s 35 of the Crimes Act to offences under the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 is legally arguable as non-applicable – that section applies, becasue all offences under the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 are “offences for which the offender may be proceeded against and tried in New Zealand” on the basis that they carry a maximum sentence of more than 3 years imprisonment.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Graeme Edgeler (3,279 comments) says:

    Now, normally, that provision would apply to someone the person undertaking the arrest had witnessed or subsequently discovered to have been committing an offence carrying a sentence of imprisonment of 3 years or more.

    But I think it is strongly legally arguable, in relation to offences under the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000, that “finds committing any offence” can also apply to circumstances where someone has had prima facie evidence of an offence commotted outside of New Zealand, but has not had the opportunity to arrest them until they enter New Zealand.

    No it’s not.

    We’re talking about arresting someone here. You need a reason to do that and a power to do that. Not only do you completely neglect the words “any offence against this Act” it is absolutely clear what this section means. The ICC does not rely on citizens arrests it issues arrest warrants, and if you seriously believe there is a war crime here you can either go to that august body or file a charge and seek a warrant of arrest (as people did with Moshe Ya’alon).

    Let us look at what you are seriously suggesting here. You are suggesting that, essentially because someone read a no-doubt well-researched article in the New York times Dr Rice should be arrested and held without charge while someone – we’re not entirely sure who – tries to scrape together some evidence.

    She is arrested, and held, and within 24 hours you take her to court and say, we’d like Dr Rice held in custody because we believe she is a flight risk and will escape justice. “On what charge? Why haven’t you charged her?” Well we haven’t filed it yet because the evidence – witness statements etc. (not news articles) aren’t in New Zealand, but we’d like you to hold her for a few weeks while we get the case together.

    I think perhaps we have found the answer to I/S’s, DPF’s and I imagine your concerns about detention without trial for terror suspects. Instead of calling it terrorism, we’ll call it a war crime. Then we can hold the alleged perpetrator for as long as we like without charging them. That’s not how civilised countries operate. We do not give police the power to arrest and detain people without charge or even prospect of filing one, and we sure as hell don’t allow random people to do it either.

    How long have AUSA, and you known Dr Rice was heading to New Zealand? And in all that time no-one was able to bring together evidence from overseas to lay a private prosecution? Get serious, or join the Sensible Sentencing Trust – you seem to have as much concern for due process as they do. Actually, I think that’s pretty harsh on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  128. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Graeme, interesting argument. But you have still ignored the provisions of s 5(1) of the Crimes Act: “This Act applies to all offences for which the offender may be proceeded against and tried in New Zealand”, and I think your arguments arre bound to fail legally on that count.

    The “finds committing any offence” part of my argument, I will admit, is up to judicial interpretation, but I still think I have a reasonably strongly arguable case.

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

    Cheers Redbaiter, I’m a mere apprentice by comparison.!

    Toad

    It’s still within THIS ACT!
    (I sometimes think you guys are just trying to take American hostages like your heros in Al-Qaeda)

    so it looks like you got your butt cheeks parted on that one, so here’s another.

    I’ve been thinking more about the Sue Bradford and Keith Locke dilemma I’ve been having, so I thought I’d ask your advice:
    Your driving you car down the road and ahead of you, you notice Sue Bradford stepping out on to the road. At the same time you notice Keith Locke stepping out on the other side both will soon be in your path and you cant stop safely

    Do you:
    1. swerve to avoid Keith, at the risk of hitting Sue?
    2. swerve to avoid Sue, at the risk of hitting Keith?
    3. Lock the brakes up at the risk of putting the car sideways and getting them both?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  130. Graeme Edgeler (3,279 comments) says:

    toad – I’d say you are right about s 5(1). But you’re not right about “finds committing any offence”; not least because the courts would interpret that in favour of anyone sought to be arrested (at least as far as trying to uphold the arrest goes). When the liberty of an individual is at stake (as Dr Rice’ liberty would be) the courts don’t like cute arguments.

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

    Hang on a minute. The charges the ASUA are claiming against Crimes of Torture Act 1989. are in respect to the New York Times article to do with the continued occupation of Iraq.

    The New Your Times article was in respect to Bagram Theater Internment Facility in fucken AFGANISTAN!
    Condi wasn’t even Sec of State in 2001

    All known abuses in Iraq have been prosecuted by the military!

    –Fuck Toad, you’d look really clever in court with that little anomoly wouldn’t you?

    (dip shits at the AUSA)

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

    The AUSA has withdrawn the $5000 reward offered.

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

    Thanks Daniel. I saw that.
    The fact Condoleezza Rice wasn’t even US Secretary of State until 2005 sort of fucks up the arguments a bit doesn’t it?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  134. toad (3,674 comments) says:

    Patrick, Graeme Edgeler has agreed with me on one issue of jurisdiction I raised. We still don’t agree on the second, but I think do we agree it is arguable legally, although disagree re how strong the argument is.

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

    Toad
    Minor problem

    Where did the alleged torture happen?
    How is Condoleezza Rice responsible?

    as it appears it has already been dealt with, and all before Condi was Sec State

    “The United States government through the Department of State makes periodic reports to the United Nations Committee Against Torture. In October 2005, the report focused on pretrial detention of suspects in the War on Terrorism, including those held at Guantanamo Bay detention camp and in Afghanistan. This particular report is significant as the first official response of the U.S. government to allegations that there is widespread abuse of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay and Afghanistan. The report denies the allegations”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  136. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    Any spec of credibility the greens had in my eyes is well and truly gone.
    Although I shouldn’t be, I am continually amazed at the delusional doctrines these people promote, I can only hope they don’t get any more influence than they have , kiwi’s need to wake up to the political reality over this country before its to late.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  137. Graeme Edgeler (3,279 comments) says:

    I completely disagree that it is arguable legally. There is absolutely no legitimate basis for a citizens arrest – or for that matter a police arrest – of Dr Rice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  138. Shunda barunda (2,977 comments) says:

    The fact that we are discussing arresting the secretary of state of the USA is living proof that the greens are total and utter nutters.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  139. PaulL (6,013 comments) says:

    Graeme – surely it is arguable. The fact the argument has 100% chance of losing shouldn’t be seen as a barrier – this is the Greens we are talking about, so facts are not really important.

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

    There are several issues that have arisen from the meeting today (and the meeting on Monday). Issue 15 of Craccum will examine them indepth. It will be distributed in – interestingly enough – the week that students vote on next year’s President, EVP, AVP and Tresurer.

    [DPF: Who are the candidates?]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  141. Graeme Edgeler (3,279 comments) says:

    It is arguable that people should be subject to a lawful kidnapping because someone told someone else that that person was a (war) criminal based on something they read in the New York Times? Get serious.

    However, on other matters:

    1. I believe the allegations against Dr Rice stem from actions as National Security Advisor, not Secretary of State.

    2. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions does not rely on the definition of prisoner of war in article 4. Article 3 applies to everyone held, whether POW or enemy combatant or civilian or whatever.

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

    When you read the alleged offence that the lefties are so uptight about it makes me feel whoever authorised this interrogation deserves a medal.

    “It started after the CIA captured top al Qaeda operative Abu Zubaydah in spring 2002 in Faisalabad, Pakistan. When his safe house was raided by Pakistani security forces along with FBI and CIA agents, Zubaydah was shot three times during the gun battle.
    At a time when virtually all counterterrorist professionals viewed another attack as imminent — and with information on al Qaeda scarce — the detention of Zubaydah was seen as a potentially critical breakthrough.
    Zubaydah was taken to the local hospital, where CIA agent John Kiriakou, who helped coordinate Zubaydah’s capture, was ordered to remain at the wounded captive’s side at all times. “I ripped up a sheet and tied him to the bed,” Kiriakou said.
    But after Zubaydah recovered from his wounds at a secret CIA prison in Thailand, he was uncooperative.
    The CIA has confirmed Zubaydah was one of three al Qaeda suspects subjected to waterboarding.
    After he was waterboarded, officials say Zubaydah gave up valuable information that led to the capture of 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammad and fellow 9/11 plotter Ramzi bin al-Shibh.”

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

    All good, Patrick Starr. Note too that the Greens and all the others in the selective “hate-America” mob NEVER call for the “arrest” of Fidel Castro. Note that Israel and the USA and maybe some of their allies, have standards demanded of them that are completely above and beyond Geneva, or represent some over-the-top interpretation of Geneva or other international conventions; but the likes of the Castro regime can get away with outright “Spanish Inquisition” kind of stuff while the hate-America mob look the other way……..

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

    It would be interesting what might happen in the way of International conventions in the future concerning the way nations deal with terrorists. It would be my bet that the USA would be one of the nations calling for the most MODERATE measures, and China, Russia, the Arab countries, France, and many others would be resisting the idea of ANY sort of “human rights” protections at all. I read somewhere recently, an article on “The Worst Places to be a Terrorist”, and the USA and Israel didn’t even make the list. That civilised European nation, France, did though, but THEIR ways of dealing with terrorists never makes the news.

    I was also shocked recently to discover in an essay by a Professor Baskerville, that the way the Family Court operates in the USA, (its somewhat similar here), “Fathers” have nothing LIKE the “rights” of accused terror suspects in many respects. They should stick the Guantanamo mob into the “Family Courts”, accused of Wife beating (probably true anyway), and use the system they have of endless impossible conditions and unpayable fines to keep them in limbo indefinitely…..

    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.