NOT GUILTY! Peace movement in NZ celebrates!
Spy base verdict lets protesters go free
Three peace protesters have been found not guilty of an attack on a top-secret South Island spy base, despite freely admitting causing damage put at $1 million. Otaki schoolteacher Adrian Leason, Auckland Catholic priest Peter Murnane and Hokianga farmer Sam Land were cleared by a Wellington District Court jury yesterday evening of burglary and wilful damage. The charges stemmed from the April 2008 raid on the Government Communications Security Bureau facility at Waihopai, near Blenheim. The jury took only two hours to reach its verdict after an eight-day trial. Prosecutors accused the three men of cutting their way through fences into the base, then using sickles to slash a plastic cover protecting a receiver dish. Although the men admitted the attack, they said their actions were driven by a belief that the dish, for receiving and sending satellite communications, caused human suffering.
YES! Sometimes NZers can amaze me with their generosity of spirit and wisdom. These three peaceful men popped a spy dish that was part of a war machine that SHOULD be attacked by people of conscience. Beyond the War on Terror damage this base causes others, this base is part of the Echelon programme that spys on all electronic messages NZers send and it is a gross intrusion on all of our civil rights, attacking the base and everything it represents IS the righteous action to take and these three amazing NZers should be held up as heroes!
Congratulations to them and the 12 NZers on the Jury who decided that they were not guilty. What a great day for the peace movement!
posted by Bomber @ 6:40 am
24 comments
24 Comments:
Great result, but the flip side will be wasteoil running the same defence.
this result is sickening and takes no basis from law. despite their greater good" belief, they still committed the offences as charged. The jury need to be shot, the judge seems to have misinformed them. The door is open for more tree hugging lunatics to create havoc and anarchy all over NZ. We'll see what you say then cock suckers. Hope the crown appeals.
I look forward to your support of the righteous action of anti-abortion activists when they damage an abortion clinic.
Good on them I say....thats democracy right wingers so get over it!
I think they should start a campaign to damage all National and Act offices....as that would be for the greater good!
A sad indictment on our Jury system and a blow against the rule of law. It's twisting a safeguard we have to prevent honest mistakes in-order to manipulate a juries sympathies and biases.
These religous fanatics are no different than an anti-abortion activist breaking in and damaging a clinic.
Especially when they advocate the neutralisation of doctors who engage in the murder of unborn children and a violation of their rights to live under our Bill of Rights.
Or don't they have any rights.
Anom actually posts my concern with this. We have the law and we are not meant to take it into our own hands. Whilst the techinical defence, "colour of right" can only apply to property dont expect retarded muppets to know this.
Civil disobedience is always meant to be a last resort, and whilst I support ones right to peacefully protest and bring attention this one potentially crossed the line.
Anonymous - they need to be shot??
and... anti-abortion activists damaging clinics?. (I'm sure most of the attacked clinics view the attacks as "shit happens" - we expected the nutters to emerge - even violently.
In this case, the illegality of destroying a rubber bubble has always been accepted. What is being celebrated is that the forum for actually disussing the matter has not been totally suppressed (as it was in the case of Waihopai -till now).
When was the last time the electorate actually had some say in matters of foreign policy? Shit! I can hardly remember - maybe it was when Norman Kirk sought to challenge things that eventually came to define NZ as a non-nuclear nation. (That discussion now needs to be part of any new election policy).
And so it is with abortion.
So as to your comparison with abortion. No one is against the willingness to discuss, though they might very well be at assassinations of any and all that perform abortions.
For me, I wonder why the damage caused is supposedly in the millions. Either they're bullshitting, or they're being totally ripped off.
Pay me a million dollars, and I will ensure your rubber bubble is restored to its pristine condition for fucks sake. Even if it means buying 10,000 puncture repair kits from the local bike shop, hiring the local scaffolders at premium rates, and an expert in inflating things that spin doctors perceive need inflating. For the latter, I'm sure there are one or two ACT or National Party adherents that wouldn;t be averse to a quick splash of a few grand - especially if they knew that we were under a campaign to keep the allies on-side.
mmmmmmmm. I think I'll post this as ... wait...wait for it...yea! Anonymous
Congrats Waihopai 3!
The door is open for more tree hugging lunatics to create havoc and anarchy all over NZ
Lets hope so eh?!
Interesting comments, couple of things:
1:Civil disobedience is always meant to be a last resort, and whilst I support ones right to peacefully protest and bring attention this one potentially crossed the line.
Come on Jeff, at what point do you say enough to the Iraq war machine? Surely the 3 waited as long as they could before resorting to civil disobedience?
2: A sad indictment on our Jury system and a blow against the rule of law. It's twisting a safeguard we have to prevent honest mistakes in-order to manipulate a juries sympathies and biases.
These religous fanatics are no different than an anti-abortion activist breaking in and damaging a clinic.
I disagree, this is a Jury listening to the evidence, listening to what this spy base does and deciding on that basis that these 3 men will not go to jail for attacking a spy base linked to a war that is immoral. The suggestion that this is suddenly a green light to attacks on abortion clinics and that Jurys will let people who bomb abortion clinics off the hook is simply lazy thinking, the fact is that this spy base is a moral hazard to the nation as a whole in a way an abortion clinic is not and this Jury decided on where that threshold would be.
GREAT DAY BROTHERS - GREAT DAY!
"Come on Jeff, at what point do you say enough to the Iraq war machine? Surely the 3 waited as long as they could before resorting to civil disobedience?"
How about the dude who has waited 20 years for them to reverse the effective legalisation of the "murder of babies", now I am going to go and blow me up some clinics.
See the slippery slope? I think as a general rule the liberal agenda, which I support, has more to lose on this line. Generally because the fundies are more often from the conservative strain.
Well I’m stoked, the good old ‘I committed a lesser crime to try and prevent a more serious crime’ defence does it again.
I used that same defence back in 92 when Mr Plod tried to nail me with a couple of malicious charges. When I first mentioned my defence strategy to the judge he smiled but after I had finished my story he told the cops where to get off. Not only that but I caught out one cop telling porkies under oath and also unmasked another cop as an agent provocatuer.
There were a lot of pissed off cops in Wanganui that day I tell you what!
the fact is that this spy base is a moral hazard to the nation as a whole in a way an abortion clinic is not
Actually bomber, it wasn't proved if the spy dome is a moral hazard or not.
The abortion clinic, otoh, does "kill" unborn babies, ands therefore can constitute a moral hazard.
Not your morals, no. But thats beside the point.
"...this spy base is a moral hazard to the nation as a whole in a way an abortion clinic is not..." [Bomber]
Ah, Bomber - the Waihopai spy base is a moral and physical hazard to NZ, but so too are abortion clinics. IF - and I acknowledge there is debate about this - but IF you accept that life begins at conception, then there are over 18,000 babies being killed every year in NZ. That is slaughter on a collosal scale, to match and exceed the illegal wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The 'defense of others' argument applies in both the Waihopai and abortion clinics cases - but you have to prove necessity, which requires a provable link between Waihopai and the US slaughter of innocent life in Iraq & Afghanistan.
It is far easier to make that link in abortion - the facts of what goes on at abortion clinics is far better known than what *specific intelligence* is gathered in Waihopai.
But even if the defense of necessity fails (for the Ploughshares or an abortion clinic attacker), you then have the defense of 'right' - thinking your actions were right even if they weren't. But you have to show genuine belief, which is why the Waihopai 3 were acquitted (they truly believe they were saving lives) and where some abortion clinic attackers could use the same argument (as they too truly believe lives are being taken, even if they can't prove that those unborn babies are 'live human beings').
It is actually very hard to show the genuine belief required for a defense of 'right', so this won't cause a slew of new acquittals. Ironically, what made it possible for the Waihopai 3 is the secrecy of the spy base - so little info gets out about Waihopai's claimed 'lives saved from terrorist attacks by our spying', that a person could genuinely believe it was doing only harm, not good. hehe
A massive victory for peace.
Tragic how the hard left still romanticise fascism. They like everyone else have a say on NZ foreign policy every 3 years. They can vote Green and when they don't become government spend the time until the next election convincing the majority to vote Green. What they did is presuming an authority they don't have ...when sanctioned by these clowns (jury and judge) its a dangerous precedent.
Great day for commie/leftie elitists bad day for the rest of us.
No I disagree with you, here is why you are wrong...
1: Abortion is NOT murder so your attempt to determine it as such would fail in court.
2: The spy base however was determined to be enough of a moral hazard to justify the right of these peace activists to make the decision they did.
3: Now if you anti-abortionists want to bomb clinics and I note that the peace activists did not BOMB the spy base so attempting to compare the two I think is intellectually bankrupt in the first place, but if you want to bomb an abortion clinic and then own up and be arrested afterwards you can try your argument out with the Jury and see if they compare the popping of a spy base cover and bombing an abortion clinic can't you?
Good luck with that.
GREAT DAY FOR THE PEACE MOVEMENT
(1) Abortion is not like murder just like collecting intellegence is not fighting a war. This is determined by a jury remember and the colour of right is based upon what you subjectively believe. I personally think a featus is that, but others dont.
(2) Many consider abortion to be the greatest moral hazard we currently face. Just because you and I dont agree doesnt mean they do not believe it or have a right to believe and by your arguments have a right to show that by doing civil disobedience.
(3) Ok not blowing up then, destroying by way of a bulldozer in such a way as to not endanger life.
Basically you are trying to have your cake and eat it.
And finally since when has collecting intelligence been anti peace. You can use the information for "good" and "bad", but its intellegence which allows one to stop many "bad" things happening which in the same stroke then removes the justification for other bad things by western governments, i.e. be it torture or whatever.
So we have moved from blowing up an abortion clinic to bulldozing it to the ground as on par with cutting a few gates and popping a satellite dish cover?
Does anyone accept that comparison?
Abortion is legal, pretending it is murder and honestly holding that opinion won't protect you from a jury.
Part of the case here was what these dishes do and that we aid the war in Iraq by being part of that system.
This was an argument that aided in accepting the belief these 3 peace activists acted upon.
Attempting to suggest this defence will greenlight bulldozing abortion clinics seems unlikely.
As for aiding a super power in an immoral war and just accepting that seems like an unethical way to live. I salute what these 3 men did and believe the case has enough innate moral merit to mean that their defence will not be expanded to anti-abortionists with bulldozers.
as if this base had anyhting to do with iraq. lame excuse. ridiculous criminals running free.
really interesting interview on radio with one of the guys on www.averagejoe.co.nz, can't remember which station it was :o)
Popping a couple of "balloons" worth $2m. Does it really matter re the method, the end result is the same, a destruction of property.
By your arguments of abortion being legal, so is gathering surveillance. In fact whatever is legal is what is determined by the state. Hence civil disobedience.
I would take you one further this entire case is about those dishes purportedly aiding Iraq, and I have no doubt that they and you find it morally repugnant (personally I am mixed). However like they are used to gather intelligence, abortion clinics are used to procure abortions. Just because you and I think strong anti abortionists are nutters doesn’t stop them having the view it is the most morally repugnant thing that occurs on earth. As far as they perceive it is murdering babies. I fail to see how you cannot seriously make the logical connection between someone getting away with destroying some balloons which 'aid and assist' a war and someone destroying property which "aid and assist' abortions. Both are subjective view points held with strong passions on either side.
I could take this one step further. A further argument that could be put forward is the war in Iraq is illegal (almost certainly true based on international law). However so is arguably abortion. Our law only allows it where it is for the benefit of the health of the mother, this is hardly how it is being applied. It is not rectified as it’s too much of a political hot potatoe. However it gives both sides an equally arguable case.
P.s. quite enjoying this debate.
Jeff
"anti-abortionists with bulldozers."
Just for the record, would be kind of funny no? Imagine this army of them approaching.
Reminds me of those motivation pictures with things like flying bears, etc.
So direct action from the left is ok, but not from the right?
Bomber you may agree with these protestors, that is your right. But the law is supposed to be impartial. Lets say (and I dont condone the following) a person believed that biofuel production was taking grain etc out of the mouths of poor people. If that person/group destroyed $1 mil worth of crop, because of their conviction, with no person harmed, would that be acceptable?
sdm - and Jeff, I disagree with the wider interpretation you are trying to compare this unique case with these unique set of circumstances to wider abortion issues or biofuel crop protests to show this as a bad judgement. I think Gordan Campbell sums it up best...
Inevitably, there has been discussion about the precedent created by this decision. Plainly, no legal precedent has been created by a verdict reached by this particular jury, in these particular circumstances – and yes, any future case would be argued afresh, on its merits. Yet the publicity surrounding this case will mean that any future jury pool will be more likely to be aware of the argument of moral necessity advanced by the Waihopai Three, just as any future protester thinking of doing damage to public property will now be more aware of this defence, and its potential for success.
...any protester who is willing to cause symbolic damage for political action has to be aware of the legal issues and if an anti-abortionist honestly thinks he or she (usually a he) can attack an abortion clinic to equate the war on terrorism to legal abortion as a defense and let's see how far it gets past the Jury. I don't think the same set of unique points would align for the same result.
The bow you are both trying to stretch to fit with your desire to tsk tsk seems too removed from reality to stand up to scrutiny. Anti-Abortionists who vandalize clinics won't get let off because of this verdict.
Post a Comment
<< Home