Speaker by Various Artists

Read Post

Speaker: Naked Inside the Off-Ramp

104 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Keir Leslie, in reply to Russell Brown,

    Yes, you are right.

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Ian Dalziel, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Attachment

    Yon Dunne has a lean and hungry look…

    …his man Dunne selling his vote…

    Here is our man Dunne back in Canta in July, 1974, selling his ‘Presidential’ qualities to the proles …

    (ps: feel free to grab this image and use where and how you like, or contact me for a higher res version of Mr Cheekbones in his leather jacket, jersey and precursor-quiff longhair)

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 7886 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Russell Brown,

    demonstrate that Key was lying about his foreknowledge of the original raid.

    Nearly. He's asserting that Key had foreknowledge of Dotcom before the raid, whereas Key is claiming that he'd never heard of the man up until the circus was in town and the master was in the ring.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason, in reply to Grant Taylor,

    These differences may also not be sensed or articulated by many New Zealanders, which would explain why he appeals so successfully to the pragmatism in NZ culture in which a high placing on some leaderboard is sufficient proof of a successful strategy.

    The key differences between most corporates and a democracy are in the treatment of minorities and the engagement with minority opinions. Key's behaviour during public hearings on the bill made it plain that in his view alternative opinions were a waste of his time.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    But Greens, Mana and Maori don't like the GCSB or SIS and are unlikely to vote for the likley outcome of any inquiry that isn't stacked in their favour (and that shouldn't happen).

    I'd imagine that after horsetrading post-review, they'll vote for it if it improves the GCSB in the way they want it. Why would they vote against a bill that pushes the GCSB in the direction that they believe it should go, as part of a coalition government?

    Right wing Labour faction of Robertson et al will push for a coalition with National to set us back on the centre-right path of Helen Clark

    I don't think you know Grant Robertson very well.

    And Labour's just announced policy to restrict property sales to non-residents so the chances of them desperately selling it to them looks slim at present.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6243 posts Report Reply

  • Euan Mason, in reply to Rich of Observationz,

    Presumably because it’s impolite rather than untrue.

    Maybe since he’s chosen to engage here, he could justify his man Dunne selling his vote and tell us what he got for it? Ambassadorship? Ministerial seat back? Clear run at the next election? Or just hard cash from some US-backed ‘trust’?

    The personal invective is uncalled for.

    I agree with most the second paragraph. Dunne’s behaviour in all this has been shocking. It would be good to see a response from him to those questions that demonstrated some integrity.

    Canterbury • Since Jul 2008 • 258 posts Report Reply

  • Hebe, in reply to Euan Mason,

    The key differences between most corporates and a democracy are in the treatment of minorities and the engagement with minority opinions. Key’s behaviour during public hearings on the bill made it plain that in his view alternative opinions were a waste of his time.

    Key seems to have tipped into the Rob Muldoon "you can think what you like but if you disagree with me you are a fool" political mode.

    Christchurch • Since May 2011 • 2895 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to Keir Leslie,

    If there’s a credible independent inquiry into the security services, the spectacle of the National Party lining up to vote it down will be so damaging and ludicrous that of course they won’t (and if they do, well, that’s fine by me). Likewise, the Greens would love to get some serious reform here, and they won’t waste that chance — it’s the only one they’ll get for the next twenty years.

    And everyone involved is going to have to walk a tightrope. Many Green supporters don't want reform, they want abolition and a withdrawl from Five Eyes, and they will be joined by people outraged by the NSA leaks. Labour meanwhile is a party fundamentally of the status quo, who support the national security state and always have.

    Reconciling that contradiction is going to be... interesting. I think the Greens could be persuaded to accept serious reform, but it will have to actually be serious. And if they don't get that, given the fate of the Alliance they are better off pulling the plug and going to the people for a stronger mandate against Labour, rather than betraying their own core supporters.

    The good news is that both Labour and the Greens have an interest in massaging this problem away. I think we may see a refinement of Labour's "review then repeal" policy to "repeal (GCSB powers, but not oversight) then review" to lower the stakes a bit.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1711 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Love,

    The 2003 GCSB Bill was not proposed as a response to Sept. 11. The first reading of the 2003 Bill was in May 2001, before Sept. 11.

    Also, note that it took 2 years for the passage of the previous bill, because there was a desire to get it right with cross party support. And the main problem with the 2003 version was that we subsequently found that the GCSB was secretly ignoring its legislation.

    Since Jun 2009 • 25 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Love,

    Dunne initiated a number of worthwhile amendments to the bill, more than anyone else managed, but one person versus 59 can only do so much.

    .

    He could have always voted against it. And then the government would have had to propose entirely new legislation (or go to a snap election, I suppose).

    Since Jun 2009 • 25 posts Report Reply

  • Idiot Savant, in reply to Kyle Matthews,

    I'd imagine that after horsetrading post-review, they'll vote for it if it improves the GCSB in the way they want it. Why would they vote against a bill that pushes the GCSB in the direction that they believe it should go, as part of a coalition government?

    Oh, they'll vote for it. But there are going to be difficulties satisfying their own base. If Labour's reforms are simply a humiliating sop with no real change, then the Greens will be facing a real risk of becoming Alliance 2.0. And in those circumstances the lesson is: pull the plug, go to the people, and get a stronger mandate from your supporters for your position. Anything else, and you cease to exist as a party.

    While there are people in Labour who hate the Greens and regard them as the enemy, this isn't in Labour's interests. They want to be in government, and they need a coalition partner on their left to do it.

    Palmerston North • Since Nov 2006 • 1711 posts Report Reply

  • Pete George, in reply to Richard Love,

    And the main problem with the 2003 version was that we subsequently found that the GCSB was secretly ignoring its legislation.

    That's a disputed opinion. It's also claimed that there were two ambiguious clauses, one saying the GCSB couldn't spy on New Zealanders, and one saying they could spy on behalf of other agencies (SIS and police). The Kitteridge report highlighted this, as a result the Goverment put a halt to any "on behalf of" spying until it had been clarified in law, hence this bill.

    A major remaining criticism of the new legislation is that it isn't clear in critical areas, requiring three separate clauses to rule out mass surveillance.

    The most likely outcome is for either a National or Labour led government to allow the legally required inquiry into the GCSB and SIS in 2015 to proceed and use that to clarify the intent much as Key has belatedly tried to explain.

    This could have been avoided if Key hadn't been arrogant and Shearer hadn't been politically naive (or weak).

    Dunedin • Since Dec 2011 • 139 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh, in reply to bob daktari,

    I loathe the use of the term inside the beltway, it supposes the general public don’t care or understand…

    I loathe the term because it refers specifically to a highway, I-495, surrounding Washington DC. Using "inside the Beltway" to refer to anything in NZ politics makes as much sense as referring to the Governor General's residence is l'Elysée, the PM's place as Downing St, or the Beehive as the Kremlin. It would be nice if our political journalists would stop being so bloody lazy and dream up a more appropriate metaphor.

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Aidan, in reply to Richard Love,

    And the main problem with the 2003 version was that we subsequently found that the GCSB was secretly ignoring its legislation.

    Which seems to be the culture of these sorts of organisations, namely "A Few Good Men"-eqsue. You can't handle the truth etc.

    This 1983(!) article about the NSA could have been written yesterday, and shows the organisation was always tacitly given it's head to engage in activities that were solidly illegal.

    Canberra, Australia • Since Feb 2007 • 154 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    Attachment

    For more evidence of Dunne's integrity, and the reasons behind his anti-party pill crusade, this page might inform.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Idiot Savant,

    I think the Greens could be persuaded to accept serious reform

    I think serious oversight would satisfy the Greens, by and large. An independent watchdog with resources and teeth, reporting to an empowered select committee on which the PM doesn't even sit, never mind sitting as Chair, would go a really long way towards soothing the Greens' collective fevered brow. The very real consequences of disestablishing NZSIS and/or GCSB and withdrawing from Echelon, as outlined in the Kiwi Politico piece I linked before, should be sufficient to win that argument on the day, but only if the intelligence services are subjected to high-quality oversight from both within and without Parliament.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Richard Love,

    the GCSB was secretly ignoring its legislation.

    The GCSB was the recipient of a law that was ambiguous in the face of the actual operational pattern of being a supporting agency. The demonisation of GCSB as deliberately breaking the law and knowing they were doing so doesn't stand up to scrutiny against Sir Bruce's description of how support services were delivered. As I say in that post, fixing the ambiguity (whether in the affirmative or the negative) is a small handful of words in the right place in the law. It doesn't need this rushed offensive on civil liberties.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Chris Waugh,

    John Key has become a smaller man, more petty than we’ve seen him before.

    This. And:

    Spoken like a tactician

    And that, I think, is a major problem in NZ politics. Does our political class have any strategists? The Greens seem a little better than most at long-term thinking, but I'm not convinced.

    And what's with all the hating on Peter Dunne? I don't see much reason to like him, and I agree that he should've voted against the GCSB Bill, but he's not the real enemy. Does he actually deserve all the venom being spat his way? I can imagine John Key sitting in his office smirking as he thinks of all the attention being directed the wrong way. Could he have created a better diversion himself?

    Wellington • Since Jan 2007 • 2401 posts Report Reply

  • Richard Love, in reply to Matthew Poole,

    The very real consequences of disestablishing NZSIS and/or GCSB and withdrawing from Echelon...should be sufficient to win that argument on the day

    I wouldn't be so sure. In the 1970s, it was equally unthinkable, by non-radicals, that we could declare ourselves nuclear free.

    Sure, there is probably an argument for having an intelligence agency. But it doesn't need to be one whose primary function is as an outpost for the NSA.

    Since Jun 2009 • 25 posts Report Reply

  • Keir Leslie,

    I have to say, I don't particularly support us having a GCSB or SIS or our Echelon participation. However, be that as it may, there's a huge amount that can be done absent abolition to improve those two institutions.

    Also, it's not really fair to say Labour's always the party of the status quo on these issues. Nuclear free NZ, anyone?

    Since Jul 2008 • 1452 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell, in reply to Pete George,

    That’s a disputed opinion.

    That’s the opinion of the courts, I believe. That’s the illegal spying John Key apologised to Kim Dotcom for.
    As the political fallout began to toxify, the line changed: the illegality became a ‘disputed opinion.’ Then the legal experts started to be disparaged, and those who’d voted for the 2003 bill ignored, when they attempted to clarify that when they’d voted for a bill that said

    Neither the Director, nor an employee of the Bureau, nor a person acting on behalf of the Bureau may authorise or take any action for the purpose of intercepting the communications of a person… who is a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident.

    what they’d intended was that the GCSB NOT intercept the communications of NZers.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 2090 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Pete George,

    one saying they could spy on behalf of other agencies

    There was no such clause. What there was was a clause requiring them to assist other government agencies.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Rob Stowell,

    That’s the opinion of the courts, I believe.

    Nope. It’s the opinion of the commentariat; it’s never been ruled on by the judiciary. And the absolute certainty of various commentators that it’s unquestionably illegal is not supported by what Sir Bruce told NetHui about how things really worked. It’s murky as all hell, and I would love to know how such a situation wasn’t explicitly clarified (in either direction) by the 2003 Act.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Matthew Poole, in reply to Richard Love,

    it was equally unthinkable, by non-radicals, that we could declare ourselves nuclear free.

    Nobody said it's unthinkable that we could pull out of Echelon. What Paul said is that there would be severe consequences, and based on the reaction by the US to the anti-nuclear issue we can be quite certain that Paul is absolutely correct. All the more so when one considers that pulling out of Echelon means shitting on the rest of the Anglophonic world (and their Western intelligence/security partners), not just shitting on the US.

    Auckland • Since Mar 2007 • 4097 posts Report Reply

  • Rich of Observationz,

    one saying the GCSB couldn't spy on New Zealanders, and one saying they could spy on behalf of other agencies

    So, if a taxi driver is not allowed to break the speed limit, and they are allowed to carry passengers, they can break the speed limit when they're carrying passengers?

    Interesting logic.

    Back in Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 5550 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.