Posts by Katharine Moody
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
I also find it disturbing that Bill English is “not ruling out” an inquiry – but accepts the NZDF position that “the allegations of war crimes now seem to apply to some other place” and therefore (accepting that location difference as fact), it would “very much narrow down the scope for inquiries”.
If we think of these statements in terms of Lukes’ typology of power – limiting the terms of reference of any inquiry is an example of Lukes’ second order “power over process”, that being:
The ability to systematically exclude competitors from the process of decision making, or to confine decision making to ‘safe’ issues
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to
You may note that I’m suggesting an investigation is the most important thing.
And given the most recent developments, I think an investigation - as opposed to an inquiry - is the only way to go. I assume the legal team acting for the villagers can file a complaint with the NZ Police, provide them with what evidence they have and let the Police run through the proper process. I assume they (the Police) might decide there is not enough credible evidence to support a prosecution or perhaps that they are not the appropriate authority to investigate - but whatever, surely that process should get underway.
The executive branch of government has far less influence in respect of a Police investigation than it would an inquiry, I suspect.
-
With respect to your last sentence, Graeme, why "should we not let that happen"? Meaning, why is it a less satisfactory body to conduct the investigation?
-
-
Capture: Where have you been all Summer?, in reply to
I’d be delighted! Just so glad it has made other people smile in the same way it did me. Picture of Aurora with her work above and one of the kids and the dogs at the lake shore – along with what we affectionately called ‘Shaggin’ Wagon’ in the background! Nothing like memories in life of a summer holiday :-).
-
Hard News: The long road to Hit and Run, in reply to
You are so right - that's when those on the ground rely on those up the chain of command - and as you have noted - those up the chain seem to have completely failed them if the account given in the book is correct.
-
Hard News: The long road to Hit and Run, in reply to
At last…someone acknowledging the impact if this on the people who were actually there. Well said Katharine
Had a Vietnam vet boyfriend back in the States in the late 70s – came to know the pain and the anguish he suffered intimately. Hence, the term regretful respect – I am ashamed and hold huge regret that my country sent him there, but I had immense respect for him for his ongoing suffering and moral character – knowing it was all unable to be justified. And it was this moral character that haunted him, and I assume, haunts those who have sought out Nicky Hager to tell the story.
What disturbs me a great deal about this report is the reference the authors make to the attack being motivated by revenge. NZ loses one life – Afghans lose tens (maybe hundreds) of thousands – and NZers seek revenge? I can only imagine our soldiers were in the wrong head-space if that was their thinking on the ground at the time. Again, I don’t blame them at all for that – fighting other people’s wars screws up your mind/rational thought big time.
-
This must be absolutely awful for those individuals who were there and who know the truth. Regardless what happened I feel sadness along with a regretful respect for every one of them. War is horrid - more innocents are killed than perpetrators - that is an indisputable fact.
We should never engage our citizens overseas in this way. A full move to reconstruction is where I would go. No guns, no tanks, no weapons whatsoever. Spend the budget on tents, medicines, food, water purification systems, people transporters and hospital ships. Double the number of Kiwis in service and train them as medics, nurses, engineers, teachers and psychologists. Exit Five Eyes.
-
-
Hard News: What the wastewater tells us…, in reply to
All in the service of making meth look safer and easier to trade in than weed.
Yes, it's criminal - the failure of our politicians, that is.