Hard News: More Secrets and Lies
49 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
The Prime Minister has, inevitably, dismissed any prospect of an inquiry. We should not let him off so easily.
Well, no we shouldn't -- but at least he'd answer questions about the SAS, as Jon Stephenson pointed out. I don't think anyone is naive enough to think the SAS are in Afghanistan to hand out sweeties and toilet paper, but nor should we tolerate being lied to (whether by commission or omission) by successive governments.
-
Toby,
WikiLeaks imply that the NYT/NPR/Guardian source is Domscheit-Berg. As others pointed out yesterday, there's a rather desperate irony in the sight of WikiLeaks, the great defenders of source anonymity, outing a source - and without offering any evidence, to boot.
-
Other media organisations have baulked at this story, perhaps concerned about political fallout.
For "fallout", read "loss of advertising revenue".
-
Note: I've added the name of another former Defence minister, Mark Burton, to the list of likely dissemblers, based on something I was told this morning.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
nor should we tolerate being lied to (whether by commission or omission) by successive governments.
No. I do suspect this isn't going to be good for Goff.
-
I would just like to compliment Jon Stephenson. On the two times I have seen him on TV explaining his story he has been composed and knowledgeable. I thought he had explained himself very well.
But the Guantánamo system piled lie upon lie through the momentum of its own existence,
I can think of other examples where systems do this via their dedicated mouthpieces, too many.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
I would just like to compliment Jon Stephenson. On the two times I have seen him on TV explaining his story he has been composed and knowledgeable. I thought he had explained himself very well.
Jon is an extraordinary journalist. He'd admit himself that he's not always the easiest guy for an editor to work with, so extra props to Simon Wilson for making that commitment.
-
BTW, anyone who can find the assessments of the three prisoners apparently taken from Band e Timur (the Americans officially spell it "Band Taimore") in the Wikileaks files gets a chocolate fish from me.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
No. I do suspect this isn't going to be good for Goff.
Well I would agree with you there, wouldn't I? :) But more seriously, I don't think New Zealand's reputation at home or abroad should come out of this unscathed. God knows we've collectively done enough moral high horse riding to score Olympic equestrian gold.
Weirdly enough, I suspect most people could swallow surprisingly high levels of upfront cynical Realpolitik but Nixon's First Law always comes back to bite. It's never the crime that trips you up, but the lies you tell to cover it up.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
He’d admit himself that he’s not always the easiest guy for an editor to work with, so extra props to Simon Wilson for making that commitment.
And would I be wrong to suspect that Wilson and Stephenson spent many, very expensive hours with lawyers vetting every syllable and punctuation mark before the story went to press?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
And would I be wrong to suspect that Wilson and Stephenson spent many, very expensive hours with lawyers vetting every syllable and punctuation mark before the story went to press?
I gather that was very much the case.
-
Sacha, in reply to
this isn't going to be good for Goff
Has anyone told Danyl? #meme
-
Thanks Russell, for keeping this story alive. The duplicity of successive governments when it comes to national security issues, set against the backdrop of ongoing erosion of civil liberties and expansion of the state security apparatus post 9-11, is cause for concern for anyone who believes in the democratic values of transparency and accountability. Jon's article raises some very serious questions that need honest answers rather than PR spin. For a tangental yet related take on the NZSAS in Afghanistan, check out: http://www.kiwipolitico.com/2011/04/tactical-utu-in-a-strategic-quagmire/
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
need honest answers rather than PR spin
But we don't vote for honest answers, we vote for the best spin.
This is just another example of how depressingly awful our governments have been over the last decade or two. They can't dare to tell us, the people they are meant to represent, the truth, for fear that it might affect their polling. Ironic then that it will come back to affect their polling. Or maybe not, somehow nothing seems to affect Key's polling.
Where the hell are the decent politicians?
Meanwhile I can't help but feel sorry for the SAS themselves. On the ground knowing pretty much what is really happening but unable to do what they know to be the right thing.
-
This is a lot to process. If there's evidence to suggest NZ forces inadvertently broke international law, we must examine it further without a concern about who it might reflect badly on.
No one should pretend that the SAS and its political masters weren’t in a terribly difficult position here: the lawlessness of both the Americans and, later, the Afghan security forces presented a problem that was in some ways intractable. But the British found a way: they instructed their forces not to hand over any prisoners. Our leaders sought other means to make the problem go away.
Which were what... perhaps I just have to buy and read the article.
The Prime Minister has, inevitably, dismissed any prospect of an inquiry. We should not let him off so easily.
Key's dismissal is thoroughly inadequate.
I'll not see the Metro article until I can arrange to get a copy in Sydney so will refrain from saying more until at least the Media7 show.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
Which were what… perhaps I just have to buy and read the article.
Making misleading statements, it would strongly appear.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
But we don’t vote for honest answers, we vote for the best spin.
Oh, bullshit. Perhaps I'm hyper-sensitive because members of my family are in the military -- and none of them signed up to be, at best, unwitting torture enablers if not outright war criminals. What they have done done is accepted that part of their job is potentially being in harm's way; that they implicitly trust their leaders with their lives and reputations.
I'm a pretty cynical guy, but I'd really like to believe thousands of people didn't go out in crap-tastic weather yesterday to honour dishonour.
I've say this right here and now, because I've already said this in an e-mail to the Prime Minister and Defence Minister (who happens to be my retiring local MP). If they won't hold an inquiry to defend the reputation of this country and its servicemen and women I will be otherwise engaged on November 26.
-
(Australian would-be jihadist David Hicks' file is fascinating for different reasons: assuming he told his interrogators something like the truth, he was able to simply to turn up in Kosovo, East Timor, Pakistan, Afghanistan, present himself for military training -- and meet very senior Al Qaeda officials.)
This morning's Australian suggests that Hicks simply told the Americans what they wanted to hear to secure his release from camp. At the very least, he can argue that any statements he made were obtained under "duress," to use the parlance of our times:
In response to the claim in the dossier that Mr Hicks "admitted" to being a member of al-Qa'ida, [Hicks's wife] said: "Any and all statements were obtained under torture, this is why he was not taken through a regularly constituted court. In the final military commissions hearing, David's legal team submitted what is called the Alford Plea. This is a US-based plea in which an accused person can agree to plead guilty whilst maintaining innocence. David has always maintained his innocence and strongly denies that he was involved with any terrorist organisations - he did what he had to do to come home."
-
Also, Sally Neighbour is suggesting that the accusation that Hicks went to Timor (for which there is no evidence) stems from the Americans' confusing him with another would-be Australian jihadist, Matthew Stewart, who served with the Australian Army in Timor in the late '90s.
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
Oh, bullshit. Perhaps I’m hyper-sensitive because members of my family are in the military – and none of them signed up to be, at best, unwitting torture enablers if not outright war criminals.
Huh? Did you misunderstand me completely? I never suggested the SAS were in any way to blame. The SAS were following political orders and to do otherwise would have ended their careers, probably unpleasantly.
All I was saying is that we select politicians who are good at spin and who do not explain what they actually have done.
In this case the politicians made the decision to tell the SAS to hand over prisoners and then the politicians made the effort to hide that decision. They could have instead explained their logic and hoped the public would vote for them. That they believed, probably rightly, that the public would have voted them out should have made them question their decision. But instead it made them choose to try and hide or spin their decision.
Somehow the system we have developed for selecting politicians does not favour selecting honest open statespeople.
-
We should feel glad that Assange’s attempt to limit the publication of the files on the basis that they were his commercial goods never got anywhere
There's some crazy irony going on there that he apparently missed.
This is a US-based plea in which an accused person can agree to plead guilty whilst maintaining innocence.
Reason #58 why the death sentence makes no sense at all.
-
<They could have instead explained their logic and hoped the public would vote for them. That they believed, probably rightly, that the public would have voted them out should have made them question their decision. But instead it made them choose to try and hide or spin their decision.>
... or they could have followed the British example.
-
What do the British do with their prisoners? Or for that matter the Australians, Canadians, Danes and other ISAF partners. I'm curious as to why we can't or won't follow their protocols.
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
This morning’s Australian suggests that Hicks simply told the Americans what they wanted to hear to secure his release from camp. At the very least, he can argue that any statements he made were obtained under “duress,” to use the parlance of our times:
And no one will ever be able to prove any different, even if there was something to know, because the case is irrevocably tainted by what was done to him. Glover's description of the "cold, incompetent stupidity of the system" is very apt.
-
Idiot Savant, in reply to
What do the British do with their prisoners? Or for that matter the Australians, Canadians, Danes and other ISAF partners. I'm curious as to why we can't or won't follow their protocols.
The Canadians have turned them over to the Americans. In fact, a couple of years back the raid on Band e Timur was bein attributed to them, and they were having the same argument as we are now.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.