Hard News: Towards the Truth
79 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
Wow! I look forward to watching it all later, but sounds like a breakthrough. Big ups to you and all the Media 7 folk.
-
L is other people...
whisteblow
Is this one way to take down a house of cards?
or the opposite of whisht ?Guessing that whistleblow is gonna mean
something different for the next coupla months...:- )
-
Lilith __, in reply to
You have card-sharp eyes, Ian ;-)
-
Fantastic television Russell ! It could have descended into a slamming match but while it was ..robust.. the truth came out to use David Beatson's words.
You did a good job holding it as you did and of course framing final question and allowing Sir Bruce the time to say what was need to reveal the truth. -
On another note how the hell did you get Sir Bruce up for this ?
-
Russell Brown, in reply to
On another note how the hell did you get Sir Bruce up for this ?
It was our producer's idea -- and he maintains he always knew Sir Bruce would says yes. But, well, we were a wee bit surprised ...
On the other hand, because he's retired, he does have some room to unburden himself that perhaps certain others do not.
-
recordari, in reply to
On the other hand, because he's retired, he does have some room to unburden himself that perhaps certain others do not.
You know, he came off pretty convincingly, at least in the first part. Can't get etra part to work yet. Might be our firewall. Will try at home later. Well, tomorrow I guess, as few things on later.
-
I think it is an interesting insight into the military. They follow orders. But they are also real people and may not agree with those orders. And as they climb ranks they then must give orders that will result in their own soldiers dying. And even then they may be following political directives they personally don't consider "right".
I think it becomes a very interesting thing to unravel. Even the idea of "covering things up" become messy when in some cases exposing the truth may actually risk lives The dilemma faced by officers and soldiers in those positions is not something to envy, especially for someone who is fighting to protect the freedom to tell the truth.
-
recordari, in reply to
The dilemma faced by officers and soldiers in those positions is not something to envy, especially for someone who is fighting to protect the freedom to tell the truth.
Exactly. And the balance between maintaining an adequate degree of transparency in a Western Democratic sense while ensuring the information doesn't curtail the military directive or compromise the safety of the soldiers would not be a trivial consideration. Wouldn't do it for quids.
-
The dilemma faced by officers and soldiers in those positions is not something to envy, especially for someone who is fighting to protect the freedom to tell the truth.
True its a real dilemma
The idea they are fighting to protect the freedom to tell the truth is a whole other debate. I wouldn’t make the link myself .
-
Bart Janssen, in reply to
The idea they are fighting to protect the freedom to tell the truth is a whole other debate. I wouldn’t make the link myself .
Two parts to this
The first is, unquestionably many of them believe that is one of the things they are fighting for.
The second is you are quite right, the reasons behind armed conflicts are not as simple as "truth" and arguably rarely about such things. Much more often political and economic.
But for the soldiers themselves those are not typically the reasons they have for being willing to fight and it is the soldiers who are faced with the dilemma.
-
3410,
Even the idea of "covering things up" become messy when in some cases exposing the truth may actually risk lives. The dilemma faced by officers and soldiers in those positions is not something to envy...
Hang on. What dilemma?
I think we're confusing two somewhat different uses of the term "covering things up".
Withholding information that may put troops at risk is - I think we all agree - at least sometimes acceptable; a "cover-up" - ie hiding evidence of illegal activity - is something quite different, isn't it?
-
maintaining an adequate degree of transparency in a Western Democratic sense
A good reason to avoid going to war, if more were needed.
It's useful to remember that NZ avoided substantial warfare for 43 of the 56 years up to 2001. Britain did rather better, with around 48 years without major conflict (except NI) (my father had a long and successful career in the RAF without ever firing a shot in anger).
I reckon that's something we should aim to revert to.
[EDIT: Gulf War 1 and Former Yugoslavia]
-
Before he was famous Bruce and his wife were very active members of our school PTA. Really nice dedicated community people and unusual in that they sent their girls to the local liberal co-ed secondary school when many of their peers were bussed off to private schools. We occasionally chatted about political things and were of course at opposite ends of the spectrum, and after all he was in the military (I think the Air Force?) so that wasn't unexpected. I had a feeling that he grew to respect Helen Clark as their paths started to cross. So I'm not surprised he fronted as he struck me as someone with integrity and intelligence.
-
@ Rich
It's useful to remember that NZ avoided substantial warfare for 43 of the 56 years up to 2001. Britain did rather better, with around 48 years without major conflict (except NI)
Variously Korea? Vietnam? Malaya? Indonesia? Suez? Falklands? Aden? Cyprus?
-
Kumara Republic, in reply to
I had a feeling that he grew to respect Helen Clark as their paths started to cross. So I’m not surprised he fronted as he struck me as someone with integrity and intelligence.
It reminds me of when Helen Clark originally spoke of the DPMC's Mark Prebble as "an apostle of the New Right", only for the two to be quite chummy later on, to the point where she appointed Prebble as State Services Commissioner, knowing he was a safe pair of hands.
And of course, Big Spud's appointment to NZ Post/Kiwibank: "My life is full of ironies."
-
I think Nicki is rather perturbed by the Big Leak. Does he think someone else might have been getting at Wikileaks to let this out??? “Eratic”, “Don’t understand”, “Debacle”, “Contradiction”. “Politics”. He made it sound this is not like the people he had dealt with.
Sir Bruce is an excellent example of a person who can live in two worlds at once. It takes someone special. Whether that is a “good’ special or not could be a debate.
He started by saying that there was “At no stage any sort of philosophy or direction we would mislead either intentionally or unintentionally either the public, the media or the politicians.”
Obviously, if you do not include certain facts in your report then it appears you are following this philosophy correctly. Amazing.
He said they did not withhold any information about what the troops were doing in Basra. But not telling what they were NOT doing did not get advertised. Fascinating double speak.
Apparently he was the only one talking one on one with Helen Clark. But it does appear from Nicki that she was well aware that officers within defence were spinning yarns that, according to Ferguson, were not being passed through him. The admission of not seeing the “cover ups” of his officers seem to fit this story. Did he know this at the time?
The extensive discussion about the prisoners being transferred. Jon and David spent a lot of time discussing the pros and cons of what happened. Ferguson admitted that no one was prepared for the war they stepped into. Could these poor bastards in our uniforms have decided since the “enemy” was not following the Geneva Convention then why should they? It is unfortunate that the term used for these people was always “prisoners”. That is the disquieting aspect that our defence hierarchy seem to have ignored. They appear to have ignored the rights of those prisoners and even though some of our troops complained, turned a blind eye to their coalition mates.
Thankfully we have an exit date. Not only have the USA, Russians, British, Alexander the Great and who knows else not managed to control Afghanistan, they all ended up broken and broke. Which is nearly where we are.
But as Russell said. We learnt more in the last week from Nicki’s book of what our Defence did in the last ten years than any amount of freedom of information requests would have given us in a lifetime. And that is very sad.
-
I forgot. This is fascinating. The first GCSB Director WITHOUT a military background.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Variously Korea? Vietnam? Malaya? Indonesia? Suez? Falklands? Aden? Cyprus?
You left Kenya off that list, and Belize. The UK wasn't in Vietnam officially although RAF pilots were seconded.
my father had a long and successful career in the RAF without ever firing a shot in anger
I'd argue that he was extremely lucky as RAF squadrons were in action in all the above. Often heavily. They were also seconded to various other allied airforces (as were our own - the guy who lived next door to us at Ohakea in the 1960s was compulsorily sent to Vietnam to fly OV-10 and O-2 COIN/Observation aircraft under fire).
-
Great edition Russell, well done.
-
Craig Ranapia, in reply to
I think it is an interesting insight into the military. They follow orders. But they are also real people and may not agree with those orders.
Um, yes - but I also hope they're "real people" who know the difference between a democracy and a military dictatorship.
-
izogi, in reply to
but I also hope they're "real people" who know the difference between a democracy and a military dictatorship
I'm sure the military would simply use robots for everything if it were practical and accurate. The days in which we even have the luxury of unpredictably autonomous soldiers on the ground who can return and annoyingly tell tales of bad and illegal things happening may be numbered.
-
Just thinking, in reply to
my father had a long and successful career in the RAF without ever firing a shot in anger
Which is why we got rid of the Skyhawkes. Even in Vietnam they weren't used.
-
Simon Grigg, in reply to
Even in Vietnam they weren't used.
We didn't get them until 1970, and they weren't really operational until 1971, however NZ pilots did fly combat missions in US Navy A-4s AFAIK - albeit just a handful.
NZ pilots were active in country as I said earlier, and there were more - my father was one - supply dropping and flying support. I found Dad's letters to me from Saigon in 1971 the other day. They were written on the back of the Embassy Hotel laundry lists and talk of barbed wire and machine gun nests in front of the hotel.
We dumped the Skyhawks - correctly I think - because they were antiquated and getting more so, and the then outgoing government had arranged to replace them with aircraft that really were no use to us - and at some cost.
-
Just thinking, in reply to
I've been a bit hard on the RNZAF. I share in the Pacific War amnesia, totally forgot their role in it.
I've always thought of them as Troop Transport by Air. Fun, useful and only dangerous to those onboard.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.