Posts by Graeme Edgeler
-
Hard News: On benefit fraud, in reply to Emma Hart,
Benefit levels were quite deliberately set below subsistence level.
Still at this level, right (or is that just without kids)? Labour never reversed Richardson's benefit cuts, and still haven't promised to.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to Katharine Moody,
Do we have a separation of powers problem here?
The Army has an obligation to investigate allegations of war crimes.
The Police also have jurisdiction.
There may be a problem here (perhaps predetermination?) but I don't think it's a separation of powers issue. Investigating crimes is the job of the executive.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to Alfie,
Wayne Mapp has posted on Pundit revealing that he was one of the sources for the book.
Wayne Mapp has posted on Pundit that he has been interviewed by Jon Stephenson. He does not say he was one of the sources for the book.
(He may well be, but he has not said he is in that post) -
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to simon g,
The follow-up questions at Keating’s press conference were the first sign the tactic was working (short-term, at least): the assembled journalists kind of forgot to say “So General, no dead people then?”.
He quite clearly stated there were dead people. He said they were all insurgents, one killed by the SAS, the others by the helicopter under direction from the SAS ground air controller.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to Alfie,
Kathryn Ryan said RNZ had discovered a NYTimes report from 2010 – two days after the abortive raid reported in Hit and Run. That report named the same two villages as the book, which suggests that the Defense Department’s “Look… over there… another village” claim is complete and utter bollocks.
This is not a new discovery. The article is footnoted in Hit & Run.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to Alfie,
Sorry Graeme, but you have to forgive those of us who hold a cynical view of “independent” enquiries set up by this government and see them as a convenient way of brushing serious issues under the carpet.
You may note that I'm suggesting an investigation is the most important thing.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to BenWilson,
Have any of the countries where you’re suggesting non MP police investigate war crimes actually successfully done so?
None I know of. But I haven't looked very far. I suspect none of the war crimes investigations carried out by MPs in other countries included allegations against a former Chief of Defence and Governor-General, the current Chief of Defence, the current Chief of the Army, and the Deputy Chief of the Army.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to Sacha,
The police prosecution service’s consistent abdication of action on many political matters in recent decades seems highly material. Wouldn’t trust them to put out a fire in a rubbish bin, let alone conduct an investigation into something authority-challenging like this.
Well, the other possible organisation in New Zealand that I can think of are military police. If you have another suggestion of who could conduct the criminal investigation New Zealand is required to conduct, I would welcome hearing it.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to Kevin McCready,
Article 29—Non-applicability of statute of limitations
The crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court shall not be subject to any statute of limitations.I couldn’t find authority on our military police being subject to any statute of limitations. Limitation Act 2010 doesn’t mention police, military or war.
The limitation act deals with civil claims, not criminal matters.
War crimes are not time limited, whether tried at Courts martial or in ordinary courts. However, most other lesser offences (eg failing to follow orders) in the Armed Forces Discipline Act are subject to limitation. See section 20 of that Act.
Mataparae
Thanks! If there are any others, please let me know. I had a quick read through at the end, but the time for publishing was fast approaching, and I’m sure there are bits where I could have done a better editing job.
-
Legal Beagle: A war crimes inquiry; or…, in reply to simon g,
I’m certainly not going to substitute my “reckons” for proper legal analysis, but it’s worth considering how a NZ police investigation would actually happen.
...
Perhaps the NZ police would show the same independence and determination as Jon Stephenson. But given their track record on challenging their political overlords, even in the comfort of home, it’s hard to hold out much hope.
I'm not really going to dispute any of this. The point of my piece was manifold, but included the following:
1. Pointing out that there were allegations of war crimes;
2. Pointing out the correct response to an allegation of a crime is a criminal investigation;
3. Noting that when New Zealand becomes aware of allegations of war crimes, it is required to investigate them;
4. Noting what this means a criminal investigation, with a view to prosecuting if appropriate;
5. Noting whom New Zealand entrusts with criminal investigations;I considered expanding on the likely inadequacies of a police investigation, but the post was already long, and the time for relevance was short. And the possible inadequacies of a criminal investigation does not mean we are not required to conduct one.