- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Wednesday, August 08, 2012

Why we love Kim Dotcom

Last month Brian Edwards gave Kim Dotcom some unsolicited advice where he tried to work out why we love Kim Dotcom with as much zeal as we do.

Yesterdays evidence in Court helped seal the reasons for me...

Dotcom danger claims wavering
He was armed, dangerous and threatening to kill - that was the reason given for using anti-terrorist police officers to arrest Kim Dotcom.

...our authorities green lighted a 70 strong anti-terrorist police officer airborne assault on Kim Dotcom's mansion over a corporate Hollywood copyright infringement issue because our authorities believed that Kim Dotcom was armed, dangerous and threatening to kill??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????


That's the bullshit excuse our police force has been able to come up with for their despicable subservience to America trying to extend their jurisdiction over cyber space? That Kim Dotcom was armed dangerous and threatening to kill? That justifies them invading a persons home with all the nuance of B-52 carpet bombing campaign over Vietnam?

Put the illegal search warrants aside, this joke explanation helps explain why NZers like Kim Dotcom so much. The manner in which Kim has been treated by our authorities amounts to bullying and that grates against our nations sense of 'fairness'. Add to that the feeling that this is all just American stand over tactics on behalf of Hollywood, and the whole case starts leaving a very bad taste in everyones mouth.

Read through the joke excuses by the NZ Police to justify the risk assessment used to arrest Kim Dotcom for a full appreciation of how hollow they are...

the sergeant was unable to point to any information supporting the claim police officers were in danger during the raid.

Asked if the answers on the form would be "seriously misleading" if shown to be wrong, the officer agreed but said they had to be taken in the context of other information.

He said other elements raising the threat level included a photograph of Dotcom holding a shotgun, the expertise of his bodyguard and concern about destruction of evidence.

Dotcom's wealth was also considered a risk element because it meant the tycoon could buy items he liked, which might include guns.

...he was rich and had a photo of a shotgun? That's the 'evidence'???

The initial notes on their own report said that an airborne assault was "over the top for fraud", so why didn't they listen to their own advice and why had head office signed off on this before the request was heard?

It seems the reason the police went in all guns blazing was because the American authorities demanded the drama. Corporate Hollywood can't generate the threat level needed to justify all of this, so Kim Dotcom had to be set up as some type of high level international terrorist weeks away from a diabolical plan.

The sense that our police force has colluded with America for Hollywood interests will help drive public support for Dotcom.

When the Crown lose this case, they will have to deal with more than the egg all over their faces.



At 8/8/12 7:25 pm, Blogger Nitrium said...

To put this in perspective, 79 soldiers were sent into Pakistan to assassinate Bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist (if you believe the official story, which I do not). So Kim not quite as dangerous as Bin Laden.

At 8/8/12 8:36 pm, Blogger Richard Christie said...

(Off topic)
I agree with points in the post but a pet peeve of mine is use of "America" when you mean USA.
There are over a score of sovereign nations in the Americas who often resent being constantly included in actions etc of the United States of America. So I suggest you cultivate the habit of differentiating between America and USA, even when it might be obvious to readers.

Just sayin, it won't cost you anything.
As you were.

At 10/8/12 10:30 am, Blogger Phil said...

Sounds like a state sanctioned home invasion to me. Police state ... whoooppeee!


Post a Comment

<< Home