Posts by AndrewH
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to BenWilson,
Thanks Ben, you nailed my thinking exactly. Which both saved me the effort of writing myself, and is quite reassuring.
Despite a good analytical brain, I'm not emotionally immune from the rhetoric undermining IM - "too new, unproven, multi-headed bastard-child, personality-driven, doomed to failure, pwned by Dotcom.. etc".
I've previously voted Green for both their integrity and policies, but that integrity has also frustrated me - I've felt they needed more mongrel to survive/achieve their potential. Now I see the opportunity in having a party which leaves the Greens free to be true to their values and at the same time injects the much-needed mogrel into the coalition. I don;t agree which a few things Hone says and does, but he has the scrapping gene, and unlike Winston it's not just to admire his own reflection as he flexes. -
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
I get your point re: assurance, and I agree - they can't. But I distrust the Swedish prosecutors motives as much as you trust the Assange teams ones. The current stand-off is a situation that could've been avoided at different stages by both sides, but wasn't. Now it's at the point where it's hard to see any way that justice can be served in any manner. To run the argument that Assange should head to Sweden to face the music is pretty much as realistic as saying Snowden should pop home for a chat with the prosecutors there - lovely concept, completely impractical.
If I were Assange, then guilty or innocent, there's no way I'd get on a plane back to Sweden right now. He's pissed off way too many powerful people, and they intend to get him one way or another. I don't see that as a paranoid view, just an accurate reading of reality. But that also makes it nigh on impossible to guarantee either a fair trial or safe passage (and from it, if cleared). THIS is another of the prices we pay for a fucked-up utu-based system.
If the surveillence debate underlines one thing yet again, it's Helen Clarke's warning at the outset of the Iraq war on how we were moving from an international system based on the rule of law to the rule of the jungle.
Since under Bush/Obama/Key virtually no-one in authority is being held accountable for anything meaningful, illegal surveilling has joined the list of rendering/kidnapping, drone-executing, financial conspiracy and whatever else that will never be prosecuted. Key is in the unusual position as a politician he actually has something to lose from this, but even if he were to lose the election off the back of it, his cash and connections will make it a very soft fall. There's no real prospect or mechanism that I'm aware of for him to face real, meaningful charges if he lied to the country, passed legislation under urgency to willingly undermine the democracy etc. There's an asymmetry to treason charges that means they're never levelled at those that really deserve them.
If he has lied as I think looks likely, that's treason in my mind. From the journo's outlook you'd think it was a speeding ticket he was being accused of. -
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to stephen clover,
Thanks Stephen, I can accept the concerns around avoiding triggering material, and although I don't particularly agree with what seems to be the general consensus around Assange, I've no wish to continue the argument.
OTOH, if those are the ground rules, then I suggest Craig avoids rocking that particular snark. That Dotcom is tone deaf to NZ sensibilities is a truism I would've thought. The shit about Assange's paranoia etc is over the line. -
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to AndrewH,
PS - and for the record, Assange's talk was the weakest of the lot last night, and I think he frequently acts like a dick. OTOH, I just don't think you get to say "alleged rapist" move along without being called out.
Mysogeny and violence has no place in our culture, but neither does 'excommunication by accusal". -
Hard News: Vision and dumbassery, in reply to Craig Ranapia,
"The Swedish government quite rightly wouldn’t accede to a request they have precisely no standing under domestic or international law to make, and which wouldn’t be binding on any Swedish court if they did. (The Swedish courts which, by the way, are bound by exactly the same EU laws as the UK not to extradite in circumstances where there is any risk of the death penalty or torture.) And to be perfectly cynical, I think Mr Assange and his lawyers are perfectly well aware of that fact.
I’d also suggest Julian Assange no more gets to dictate the terms on which he is investigated by the Swedish authorities when it comes to incredibly serious allegations of sexual assault, than Muhammed Rizalman does in the Billingsley case here. Assange’s paranoia isn’t the point here."
You know what's making my bullshit alarm ring, Craig? The dog-whistling that because Assange is accused of a crime, giving him airtime to speak on something totally unrelated is equivalent to endorsing his character. Because it isn't Craig.
As to whether he's being paranoid in not stepping out his front door into, you know, the vastly expensive police stakeout, because nothing says "this is being treated as a crime like any other" like that entourage. If the Swedish prosecutors simply want to interview him then please tell what's wrong with any fucking room in London to conduct that interview? And why is it critical he go to Sweden for that interview unless it's a matter of getting him on particular soil (or between it) or sending a message? Because that "paranoia" occurred in the context of some highly dubious mechanations within the Swedish legal system, and also the Chelsea Manning witch-trial and the forcing down of Morales plane in the search for Snowden. So pardon me if I don't fling in an accusation of paranoia quite as readily as you.
-
From the latest Herald story by Trevett:
"He defended his decision to release Cabinet papers setting out the so-called 'Speargun' protection, which would have allowed the GCSB to tap into the Southern Cross Cable to monitor cyber traffic to New Zealand. That was scrapped in the middle of last year and instead a more targeted programme was set in place - Cortex - over government departments and some critical companies which agreed to it."
But the papers released by Key don;t mention/refer to Speargun at all, correct?
-
John Armstrong writes his usual non-column today (and as an aside, between awarding Whaleoil and Armstrong can the media awards ever look the world in the face again..?). But the comments running probably 80% anti-Key, including multiple wondering when Armstrong's going to take an actual stand for some accountability, which he seems to have no problem demanding of other politicians.
-
It's also hard not to agree with this blogger who calls BS on a US security apparatus which can surveil the planet and yet not read and respond to the self-published ISIS annual plans!
-
Paul - absolutely. Appropriate response to the whining - "oh FFS, get a life".
Though I'm truly grateful that Keith take the time/effort to provide the visualisation to support this response! -
Or, paraphrasing the results in the historical messaging of the wealthy:
"Waaah, our tax rate is too high, it's stifling investment/innovation etc. Reduce tax and the benefits will flow to society" (receive tax cuts, bank the cash)
"Waaah, our tax rate is too high as a percentage of tax take"..........