...My little rant wasn't really directed at the US criminals. Everyone knows the US is a terrorist police state. My rant was directed at the NZ officials that were responsible for cooperating with the US terrorists, which they are -- just ask any upload site owner that shut down if they were left in terror after MegaUpload was summarily executed. And yes - it was a summary execution. There was no trial and MegaUpload was completely destroyed in a day.
So what does this say about the NZ willingness to cooperate with terrorists? They went along with it all...
...It's shameful. And they must be held to account for what they did for there to be justice. The "law" cannot be above the law.
Yes, I understand those were the points you were making.
And I am optimistic, yes, but admittedly I do usually expect the best of human nature.
I don't know whether the authorities that executed the Dotcom raid could actually have criminal charges laid against them in an NZ court, though a UN court might be able to do that. However, any illegal actions of the people
involved could presumably be a different matter.
Liability for illegal acts by a government's authorities generally rests with that government. It can't (wouldn't) take itself to court. One of the press reports suggested that the NZ government was going to have to foot the bill for restoration of justice to Dotcom+ Etc., and I feel sure that is now being considered anyway.
I wouldn't jump too quickly to the conclusion that because the NZ authorities responded with apparent alacrity to the pressure for action from the US authorities, that the NZ party is by definition inherently corrupt/illegal. The Dotcom raid seems to have been a stupid thing to do - or at least to do in an illegal fashion. Some BIG mistakes seem to have been made. You yourself have said that if it looks like collaboration or stupidity, you'd guess it was the latter every time (OWTTE). Same principle could apply here.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the investigation (which would presumably now be taking place) doesn't lead to some people being privately severely admonished and then quietly but rapidly retired, or promoted sideways into admin. positions, where they can't then screw anything else up ever again. This sort of thing must be excruciatingly embarrassing to the government, because it does rather demonstrate that someone (the government - and by association, the Prime Minister) might well have been guilty of collaborating in what was an illegal act - or at least negligent or asleep at the helm. Not a good look, and the voters are not so unsophisticated that they wouldn't notice this and remember, come the next election. So the government would probably want to be seen rectifying this shambolic mess in a legal, professional and ethical fashion.
The whole Dotcom thing seems to have been an illegal/criminal act instigated by the US government/SS. The NZ government/SS may have been forced/duped (I hope) into complying/collaborating.
The last NZ incident that I know of, where a criminal act sponsored by a foreign government (state terrorism) was committed in NZ was the case of the Sinking of the MV Rainbow Warrior
As it says in Wikipedia: (see the actual link for embedded hyperlinks in Wikipedia)
After the bombing, the New Zealand Police started one of the country's largest police investigations. Most of the agents escaped New Zealand but two, Captain Dominique Prieur and Commander Alain Mafart – posing as married couple 'Sophie and Alain Turenge' and having Swiss passports – were identified as possible suspects with the help of a Neighborhood Watch group, and were arrested. Both were questioned and investigated, and their true identities were uncovered, along with the French government's responsibility. Both agents pleaded guilty to manslaughter and were sentenced to 10 years imprisonment on November 22, 1985.
France threatened an economic embargo of New Zealand's exports to the European Economic Community if the pair was not released. Such an action would have crippled the New Zealand economy, which was dependent on agricultural exports to Britain.
In June 1986, in a political deal with Prime Minister of New Zealand David Lange and presided over by United Nations Secretary-General Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, France agreed to pay NZ$13 million (USD$6.5 million) to New Zealand and apologise, in return for which Alain Mafart and Dominique Prieur would be detained at the French military base on Hao Atoll for three years. However, the two agents had both returned to France by May 1988, after less than two years on the atoll.
Some years ago, I was listening to a TVNZ interview with the then-retired ex-PM David Lange, where he was discussing this incident and its aftermath. I recall that he said he had no option
but to comply with the French government's insistence to send Prieur and Mafart from NZ prison to the French military base on Hao Atoll, and that their early release was no surprise. He indicated that it went entirely against the grain for him and his ethics. It was wrong
, and NZ were paid money to breach their own laws for the punishment sentence of these two French murderers, who committed their crime at the French government's direction. (OWTTE)
He explained that NZ was this insignificant little wart on the backside of the planet (the southern hemisphere), with a tiny population (then about 3.5million), and with a tiny and fragile economy which lived entirely by its ability to trade competitively with world markets, especially in pastoral produce (meat and dairy products).
"The big guys can twist your arm, and you have to give in to the bully." I think he said (OWTTE).
He reckoned that if he had refused
to comply with the French "request", then the markets for NZ produce could mysteriously be closed to NZ. NZ would have been boycotted/blocked - especially in the EU, which had historically been favourably inclined towards NZ products - not least because of the NZ commitment to the Allies in WW2 and it being the "food basket" for Britain during that war.
I could be wrong, of course, but my take on this Dotcom thing is that it could well be that NZ may have already
been having its arm twisted big time by an even bigger bully than France
, to do the Dotcom raid. And they (NZ government) could have been in such panicky haste to comply before their arm was broken that they stuffed up the legal paperwork by mistake. So now it's all going to have to be PR damage control, and
possibly some more unexplained judicial changes of judgement, as in the case of Prieur and Mafart.
We may one day be told the entire truth by our PM John Keys, when he
is being interviewed in his retirement.
One thing that the Prieur and Mafart case showed to us all was that, if necessary for the government, then the judiciary are clearly going to do exactly what they are told, and from that time henceforth they must always be regarded as being unable to exist in a proper and independent way. So you can't expect too much of them.
Unfortunately for NZ, the NZ judiciary have been pushing for a long time to run their own highest court of appeal, and thus come out from under the Court of Privy Council (UK)
. They have succeeded in this, with apparently nary a peep from civil rights proponents, or the public, or the media.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand is now the highest court and the court of last resort in New Zealand, having formally come into existence on 1 January 2004. It was necessary to erect an approx. NZ$80 million building to house the court in Wellington, the capital.
NZ thus has lost access to what has been described as the finest independent collection of legal brains on the planet (The Privy Council), and gained a narrowed and partisan judiciary which acts under government directive (QED).
However, I would say that the published ruling of New Zealand High Court judge Helen Winkelmann in the Dotcom case at least does give me some cause for hope.