Ahmed Zaoui: Residency or deportation?

[idleidolidyll]

I dont particularly like america, or Dubya, and if you think Americas a facist state you have got your head screwed on wrong. America's a corporate dicatatorship. So err no thanks I'll pass on the offer to live in the US.

Freedom of speech is a good thing to a degree, but nicky hagar is pretty much the political version of a paparazzi chasing celebs for the gossip rags. He is very much a political spin doctor, attempting to put his spin on events. Do his writings have some basis in fact? Sure I'm happy to believe that. Does he spin it to cast the worst possible light on the matter? Absolutely he does.

PS: Indicting people for "war crimes" and even the whole concept of "war crimes is another fucked up PC idea..In war, there are no rules, no laws, there is just winning.

ummmm, a 'corporate dictatorship' basically IS a fascist government.

a system of exreme right wing dictatorial govt usually with a huge links to big business and the military; does that sound like amerika? The MIC as they are collectively known

it's a description of fascism

nicky hagar may be an ambulance chaser but chasing political lies is hardly in the minor leagues of celeb hunting. Political truth is fundamental to a free society and to real democracy.
Of course he spins it, everyone spins everything their own way. He does offer some of the opposition rationale while at the same time generally dissecting it as he does.

i'm just as happy for right wing ambulance chasers to out the labour party and anyone else lying to Kiwis or committing crimes.

war crimes? sigh!
war crimes like slitting the throats of men womand and child civilians to make their friends talk?
like killing a whole group of people because you don't like their noses?
you think people SHOULD be taken prisoner and tortured without ever having the right to defend themselves or be seen by their relatives?

you and i are on different planets; perhaps you live in another dimension and i'll never meet you

one can but live and hope

[Lias]

ummmm, a 'corporate dictatorship' basically IS a fascist government.

a system of exreme right wing dictatorial govt usually with a huge links to big business and the military; does that sound like amerika? The MIC as they are collectively known

it's a description of fascism

There are some parallels, because corpratism is a form of authoritarian government, but equally they are as diffrent as facism and monarchy (another form of authoitarian government) are.

i'm just as happy for right wing ambulance chasers to out the labour party and anyone else lying to Kiwis or committing crimes.

Labour commit their crimes in public.. Pretty much their entire policy manifesto are crimes against the nation in my book.

war crimes? sigh!
war crimes like slitting the throats of men womand and child civilians to make their friends talk?
like killing a whole group of people because you don't like their noses?
you think people SHOULD be taken prisoner and tortured without ever having the right to defend themselves or be seen by their relatives?

Is it right? Maybe not. My point is that winning a war is the only rule that should (and in reality mostly does) apply to soliders.

By your standards my brother would never have been born, because his father was in the SAS in Vietnam, and it was common for them to do whatever it took to get information.

you and i are on different planets; perhaps you live in another dimension and I'll never meet you

one can but live and hope

Sorry to disappoint you, but I'm right here in your dimension. I'm also willing to fight for what I believe is right, be it with a vote, my fists or a gun, something most lefties dont have the testicular fortitude to do.

[pete376403]

PS: Indicting people for "war crimes" and even the whole concept of "war crimes is another fucked up PC idea..In war, there are no rules, no laws, there is just winning.

So Auschwitz, Belsen, etc were ok when considered in the context of the time and events taking place? The Nuremberg Trials were just a bunch of PC claptrap?

[Lias]

So Auschwitz, Belsen, etc were ok when considered in the context of the time and events taking place? The Nuremberg Trials were just a bunch of PC claptrap?

Yes.

They believed what they were doing was justified to win. Just as the allied bombing command believed what they were doing was right when they bombed dresden, tokyo, hiroshima and nagasaki.

The germans considered themselves in a war for survival with the jews.

I do always find it ironic when people bring up the holocaust though, because Stalin and Mao killed millions and millions more but they didnt get beaten by America in a war :-) The victor always writes history.

[Ixion]

I've partially read "Secret Power", I couldnt finish reading it because his politics and views make me physically ill.

I believe his "exposure" of SIS/GCHB intelligence activities is an act of legal high treason against our nation. The punishment for high treason is (or was until the woofters outlawed it) being hung, drawn, and quartered.

His campaign against Don Brash didnt exactly endear him to me either.

Nonsense. The definition of treason is quite concise (the "high" is redundant nowdays, petty treason is obsolete in law). It is contained in the Crimes Act 1961 (Parts of the Statute of Treasosn 27 Edw III are still extant but they say the same thing)

73Treason

Every one owing allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen in right of New Zealand commits treason who, within or outside New Zealand,—

(a)Kills or wounds or does grievous bodily harm to Her Majesty the Queen, or imprisons or restrains her; or
(b)Levies war against New Zealand; or
(c)Assists an enemy at war with New Zealand, or any armed forces against which New Zealand forces are engaged in hostilities, whether or not a state of war exists between New Zealand and any other country; or
(d)Incites or assists any person with force to invade New Zealand; or
(e)Uses force for the purpose of overthrowing the Government of New Zealand; or
(f)Conspires with any person to do anything mentioned in this section.

Now, which one of these does the "exposure" fal under?

And the punishment of hanging drawing and quartering (only for a man, women were burned) was abolished in the 18th century, a fair while before any of the woofters were around.

[Lias]

Nonsense. The definition of treason is quite concise (the "high" is redundant nowdays, petty treason is obsolete in law). It is contained in the Crimes Act 1961 (Parts of the Statute of Treasosn 27 Edw III are still extant but they say the same thing)

Now, which one of these does the "exposure" fal under?

And the punishment of hanging drawing and quartering (only for a man, women were burned) was abolished in the 18th century, a fair while before any of the woofters were around.

or if a man do levy war against our
lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm,
giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere,

Our modern law on high treason is just a derivation of the 1351 law, and as far as I'm concerned Nick Hagar gave aid and comfort to the enemies of this country by his publication of things which are best kept secret in the interests of national security (queue black helicopters here).

[Ixion]

So Auschwitz, Belsen, etc were ok when considered in the context of the time and events taking place? The Nuremberg Trials were just a bunch of PC claptrap?

In a strictly legalistic sense Mr Lias is correct. Since the government of a sovereign state is answerable to no external authority , people committing acts sanctioned by their state (assuming that the state be internationally recognised) , no matter how despicable, are acting lawfully.

Most of those charged at Nuremberg were not charged with "war" crimes, but with acts that were criminal under the justice code of the Reich (eg murdering prisoners etc - like the Abu Gharib cases) . Only the "high profile" leaders were charged with the rather woofly "war" crime type charges . Such as "waging aggressive war" - always struck me as quite absurd. Would any general NOT wage war aggressively? Churchill and Montgomery (let alone Patton!) certainly waged war very aggressively. But the show trial has always been one of the spoils of war. Like the trial of Saddam Hussein.

The reality is of course, that vae victrix is ever the lot of the vanquished - just that nowdays it is thought necessary to provide a pseudo-legal gloss

[Ixion]

Our modern law on high treason is just a derivation of the 1351 law, and as far as I'm concerned Nick Hagar gave aid and comfort to the enemies of this country by his publication of things which are best kept secret in the interests of national security (queue black helicopters here).

Yes, the act of 1351 is 27 Edw III.

But you need to read that (very old) act imparting to the words the specific sense of their day . "Enemies" in this context means enemies with whom war has actually been declared. Persons inimical or hostile to the King are not "enemies" within the definition (there is much case law on this). Mainly I guess because in those days it was assumed that ALL foreigners were inimical and hostile - but not all were at open war. So as New Zealand has not actually declared war on anyone for a while , the clause cannot be invoked . A very tenuous argument could be made if any of the information could be shown to directly assist those forces in Iraq or Afganistan against whom NZ troops are engaged.

It is many years since treason was used as a charge in such cases, almost always one of the various Official Secrets Acts , or Defence of the Realm Acts is much simpler. Not least perhaps because to establish treason, intent must be shown - you would have to prove that the gentleman in question INTENDED to assist the Queen's enemies. Not merely that his careless or improvident release of information was useful to them . Whereas the OSA type acts, the deed is self sufficient. You leaked the information, you're guilty. Indeed even if you didn't intend the leak at all, let alone intend it to help any enemy

[klingon]

Have any of you actually read the findings of the refugee status appeal authority on this case? (Refugee Status Appeals Authority New Zealand Refugee Appeal # 74540, 1 August 2003. Available online if anyone's interested.)

After reading it thoroughly and doing other research, I am convinced that Ahmed Zaoui is not a terrorist, but a genuine refugee.

The final line of the finding is "The authority finds that the appellant is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. Refugee status is granted. The appeal is allowed." In other words, the RSAA found that he is a genuine refugee. Their reasons are laid out in detail in their report. It's hundreds of pages long and very exhaustive, so I won't go into details here.

So, who has been paying for him since 2002? Let me think! Oh Yes. That would be you and me. If he gets residency, who will be paying for him? Let me think!.....

The cost involved in keeping Zaoui in prison have indeed been borne by the NZ taxpayer. Why have we been keeping him in prison? Because of the secret allegations about him. The cost has been caused by those making the secret allegations, not by Zaoui. I'm sure he would be very happy to be earning his living as a University lecturer (as he was in Algeria) but we have banned him from working.

Since his release on bail a couple of years ago, he has been living with a group of Catholic monks who have taken him in and cared for him.

Zaoui is desperate now, his lawyer is trying a pity stance to attempt to get his residency to be granted. This way, his multiple wives will be granted automatic access to New Zealand residency along with their many children.

Zaoui has one wife and three children. I think the true desperation can be seen in people who need to invent nonsense because the facts don't support their argument.

He's already got a fully furnished flat care of the NZ taxpayer!!!!!

He lives in a monastery. His furniture has been provided by a group of Catholic monks who hardly have anything themselves, but have chosen to share what they do have. Good on them for demonstrating the humanity that seems to be so sadly lacking in 'main stream' society.

[Lias]

Good on them for demonstrating the humanity that seems to be so sadly lacking in 'main stream' society.

When NZ is a perfect utopia with no crime, no poverty, etc then we should look at accepting refugees, and giving foreign aid.

Until then fuck em!

PS: What Zhaoui should have is a bullet, a flight home, or the scummiest dankest cell we can find in the nz prison system and a diet ofbread and water.

[oldrider]

Have any of you actually read the findings of the refugee status appeal authority on this case? (Refugee Status Appeals Authority New Zealand Refugee Appeal # 74540, 1 August 2003. Available online if anyone's interested.)

After reading it thoroughly and doing other research, I am convinced that Ahmed Zaoui is not a terrorist, but a genuine refugee.

The final line of the finding is "The authority finds that the appellant is a refugee within the meaning of Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. Refugee status is granted. The appeal is allowed." In other words, the RSAA found that he is a genuine refugee. Their reasons are laid out in detail in their report. It's hundreds of pages long and very exhaustive, so I won't go into details here.




The cost involved in keeping Zaoui in prison have indeed been borne by the NZ taxpayer. Why have we been keeping him in prison? Because of the secret allegations about him. The cost has been caused by those making the secret allegations, not by Zaoui. I'm sure he would be very happy to be earning his living as a University lecturer (as he was in Algeria) but we have banned him from working.

Since his release on bail a couple of years ago, he has been living with a group of Catholic monks who have taken him in and cared for him.



Zaoui has one wife and three children. I think the true desperation can be seen in people who need to invent nonsense because the facts don't support their argument.



He lives in a monastery. His furniture has been provided by a group of Catholic monks who hardly have anything themselves, but have chosen to share what they do have. Good on them for demonstrating the humanity that seems to be so sadly lacking in 'main stream' society.

Yes and as one of the Catholics that collectively donate money to the Catholic church I resent them spending it (my religious tax) on an international terrorist who's own organisation hates Christianity and are probably laughing hysterically at the stupidity of the Christians anyway.

Love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek is all very well but with a viper on your doorstep just get rid of it before it fatally bights you. John.

[idleidolidyll]

In a strictly legalistic sense Mr Lias is correct. Since the government of a sovereign state is answerable to no external authority , people committing acts sanctioned by their state (assuming that the state be internationally recognised) , no matter how despicable, are acting lawfully.

actually, in todays world a sovereign govt IS answerable to outside nations/institutions if they have signed specific accords related to their actions. The formation of the UN from the League of Nations required the initial signatories to ratify the Geneva convention and others thereby signing said legislation into the laws of each nation.

Likewise, all nations as signatories to the ICC or similar internatiopnal tribunals are liable to prosecution outside their own nations.

That is partly why Bush has a property in Paraguay: Paraguay is not a signatory to the ICC and when Bush is indicted for war crimes he will not face extradition from that country. His property is one of the worlds most highly guarded.

Even if a nation has NOT signed such accords their decision makers can still be extradicted from certain nations to face trial in the Hague as some of the yank govt may face if current German indictments are upheld.

[idleidolidyll]

learn how to recognise it

http://www.rense.com/general37/fascism.htm

[idleidolidyll]

Yes and as one of the Catholics that collectively donate money to the Catholic church I resent them spending it (my religious tax) on an international terrorist who's own organisation hates Christianity and are probably laughing hysterically at the stupidity of the Christians anyway.

Love thy neighbour and turn the other cheek is all very well but with a viper on your doorstep just get rid of it before it fatally bights you. John.

there ya go making accusations without the facts: as noted, the Refugee Status Appeals Authority New Zealand Refugee Appeal has already stated that he is a legitimate reugee not a terrorist.

the ball is in the SIS court: put up or shut up and let the legal system work transparently.

as for

[idleidolidyll]

When NZ is a perfect utopia with no crime, no poverty, etc then we should look at accepting refugees, and giving foreign aid.

Until then fuck em!

PS: What Zhaoui should have is a bullet, a flight home, or the scummiest dankest cell we can find in the nz prison system and a diet ofbread and water.

No country will ever be perfect and unless you are Maori you are probably descenant from some kind of refugee whether that was from ex convicts, irish fleeing famine, dalmations fleeing persecution etc.

if not a refugee but from 'normal' immigrants, your relatives came to this land agreeing to be bound by its laws INCLUDING laws yet to be made (that's democracy).

So will you take your family and go back to where they originally came from? Unlikely but you'll probably still deny similarly unfortunate people the honour of living in this fine country based on what seems to be nothing but prejudice.

as for foreign aid, we give fuck all by world standards; more than the yanks per head but still a pitiful amount