Posts by Graeme Edgeler
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
If I have to work, but can't buy a box of beers afterwards, why should people get to watch TV? If you really want to watch TV, surely you could tape some the day before, like I'm supposed to do with the wine.
But only if it runs off batteries =)
[he says, noting you did use the word "non-essential", but also remembering the planned power cut that hit Tokoroa every Boxing Day morning for a number of years]
-
A vote for anything but MMP seems too much of a risk given the uncertainty you've outlined regarding possible outcomes, if change is voted for.
That's why it's cool that you can both vote for MMP in the first question, and say what you'd prefer MMP went up against if you lose on the first.
There is no downside to voting in both questions.
Secondly, by the time we vote, we know who'll be doing the first draft of the alternative system, so the risk of uncertainty should be lessened - if it's the Electoral Commission, the system should be a fair and reasonable form of whatever system it is.
-
I thought that the President of Iraq had recently expressed a wish that the USA should leave?
I believe the President of the United States has expressed the same wish...
-
I can't realistically see Saddam having offered the same invitation had he been in office in 2007, unless of course the country had been ravaged by some other invader.
I can't see how that's relevant.
The Government of Iraq (elected by the Iraqi people) has asked the US to be there, therefore that the US is there isn't illegal.
-
But it does seem a tad optimistic to expect the lads to just follow the rules in what is otherwise an illegal war.
Not at all.
In the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal, charges of murder resulted in findings of not guilty precisely because of the distinction between lawful wars (which the Japanese attack on Perl Harbor was not) with the lawful conduct of war (which many of the actions were - you kill people in war, etc.).
Also, although the invasion may have been unlawful, such a complaint cannot be leveled at the continued presence of US and other forces in 2007, which by then was at the invitation of the Iraqi Government.
-
atrocities committed by individuals don't automatically equal systematic war crimes, nor the reverse.
Actually, I'm reasonably confident the reverse *is true*: if there are systemic war crimes, there will be atrocities committed by individuals.
-
Glenn Greenwald reminded his readers of Bush's obnoxious phrase: "they hate us for our freedom".
I believe The West Wing basically beat him to that one...
-
a miserable little essay by playwright Louis Nowra
I haven't read it, but the opening episode of First Australians which aired tonight on Māori TV, was pretty good, and a Louis Nowra was credited as writer...
-
There's a big comprehension gap between what you say and what Act says. Huge gap. So we now have attempted murder, manslaughter and murder as crimes that, as third strikes, will attract automatic life sentences regardless of the circumstances?
The maximum sentence for attempted murder is 14 years. Someone convicted of attempted murder as a third strike must receive a 14 year sentence, and will not be eligible for parole. However, if the judge considers that refusing any prospect for parole would be manifestly unjust, he or she may impose a lesser non-parole period.
Third strike murder must be life. And will be without the possibility of parole unless that would be manifestly unjust (in which case it must be at least 20 years, unless that would be manifestly unjust, in which case the law appears to be silent for some reason ... oops).
Second strike murder must be life. And will be without the possibility of parole unless that would be manifestly unjust (in which case it must be at least 20 years, unless that would be manifestly unjust, in which case it must be at least 10 years).
Third strike manslaughter must be life. And must be with at least a 20-year non-parole period, unless it would be manifestly unjust, in which case it must be at least 10 years.
First strike murder must be life, unless a life sentence would be manifestly unjust. If it's life, the non-parole period must be at least 10 years.
-
I see this morning that ACT has taken the opportunity to pat itself on the back with a leaflet singing the praises of Three Strikes, distributed inside the Herald.
And printed before the Select Committee report too - there are now 40 offences. Somewhat more egregious is the following, however:
Strike one: the offender receives a sentence, as determined by the judge, with parole.
Strike two: the offender receives a sentence, as determined by the judge, with no parole.
Strike three: the offender receives the maximum sentence for that crime with no parole*
*A Judge sentencing a strike three offender must give the maximum sentence unless it is ‘manifestly unjust’ to do soA Judge sentencing a strike three offender must give the maximum sentence.
That Judge must order that sentence to be served with no parole unless it is 'manifestly unjust' to do so. But it has to be the maximum sentence. There is no discretion about that at all.