Thanks Rosemary. Great article. "successfully applied for a Suspension Order under s 92O (2) (d) of the Human Rights Act." Applied to Minister? Can you tell us more about why Ruth Dyson's attempts failed?
The International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 (NZ)
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.
BTW some of the language in the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 is a bit wishy washy - qualified by words grave, serious, etc, presumably so that acts against the law which aren't grave or serious etc are not caught.
A war crime includes "Attacking or bombarding, by whatever means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings which are undefended and which are not military objectives;" - nothing there to excuse "Oh sorry, our intel was wrong."
A war crime includes "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives." That might cover setting fire to Naimatullah's room with his Quran and holy books (page68-69 #HitandRunNZ)
Proof reading and spell checking? Mataparae? etc.
Matthew. If you are serious about this discussion you really need to read the book, as I have done. My twitter point, to you and other scoffers who probably didn't check #HitandRunNZ, was that I was tweeting page numbers and points from the book. Editorializing and supposition without reading the book is wearing thin. I can't think of a single point you have raised, including the tactical and strategic questions (not to mention the problem with having a politically powerful war-lobbying SAS) that hasn't been covered in the book. QED.
Stop being oblique and speak clearly.
You're being silly again Matthew. Follow me on twitter if you're serious about this. See #HitandRunNZ
Here's what a soldier has to say about soldier worship.
Now you're being silly Matthew. It looks like war crimes have been committed and you joke about it?
positive contribution of the NZ PRT to the Bamyan Province.
Scene of the Crime chapter of Hager/Stephenson shows the absurdity or this and documents NZDF people saying so. Our presence there was for purely political reasons (flying flag with USA) and to blood the SAS who hadn't seen combat for a while.
Matthew. Yes, possibly efficient killers if that's how respect is earned. Some SAS are clearly liars without honour who don't perform to their own standards integrity. Read the last paragraph of Hager's book. Some SAS are clearly courageous enough to call for a war crimes investigation, others, not so much.
Yes the sources for Hit and Run included NZ SAS who were on the ground. Wayne Mapp was very unconvicing on RNZ this morning. I wondered if Guyon has yet read the book or understands the basic weaponry. A young school teacher was shot four times in the chest apparently by a NZ SAS sniper 30 metres away. Sniper weapons are capable of killing at a distance of 1000 metres. Guyon needed to ask "At 30 metres and given the technology available, wouldn't it have been possible to see that the young teacher was unarmed?"
It seems clear that the government has no control now over its media response. Guyon's interview with the SAS officer shows this. It was risible for the SAS guy to say let's not have an enquiry unless it clears us.
BTW I was disappointed with Guyon saying the SAS was a respected institution. They are a law unto themselves and have no honour.