Waihopia Ploughsahres Activists Acquitted on all counts
From the Waihopai ANZAC Ploughshares:
Adrian Leason, Father Peter Murnane and Sam Land – the three men who were charged with intentional damage and unlawful entry at Waihopai spy base – have today expressed their thanks to the jury, the judge, and the prosecution and defence lawyers.
At the conclusion of the trial, Father Peter, Sam and Adrian said they feel privileged to have helped uncover the true nature of the spy base. “Our actions in disabling the spy base and stopping the flow of information helped save lives in Iraq”, added Adrian.
“What has been humbling for us to realise is how our witness has impacted on so many people around the world and at home”, said Sam.
“We did not try to avoid the consequences of our actions, because we respect the rule of law although we do believe we are ultimately accountable to a higher authority. We damaged property at the spy base in order to save victims of war and torture. It’s all about Jesus’ command for us to treat all people as our brothers and sisters”, said Father Peter.
The jury heard that the Waihopai Echelon spy base is New Zealand’s largest contribution to the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq. The ongoing war has resulted in horrific war crimes, including more than one million dead Iraqi civilians, torture, and permanent poisoning of parts of Iraq by the use of depleted uranium munitions.
The jury also heard evidence from a former British Echelon intelligence analyst, Katherine Gunn. She blew the whistle on secret Echelon spying operations when she was instructed by the US National Security Agency to spy on United Nations Security Council members leading up to the US invasion in 2003.
“Evidence presented in the court confirmed that the ongoing war in Iraq is illegal, and causing massive human suffering”, said Adrian. “As an outcome of this trial, we hope that New Zealanders will insist on an enquiry into the activities of the spy base and its links to US-led illegal wars”.
Father Peter, Sam and Adrian expressed gratitude for all the support they have received from family, friends and the New Zealand public.
Commenting at the conclusion of the trial, Graham Bidois Cameron, Waihopai Ploughshares media spokesperson, said this Ploughshares action is part of an ongoing tradition: “The practice of non-violent resistance and direct action in the cause of peace has a long history in this country – the peaceful resistance to the invasion of Parihaka, and non-violent direct action against nuclear armed warships entering our harbours being just two examples”, he said.
“The actions of Waihopai Ploughshares also need to be understood in relation to an international movement for disarmament and peace”, said lawyer Moana Cole, herself a Ploughshares activist. “Adrian, Sam and Father Peter are part of rich history of activism in support of those without a voice and the movement is certainly growing”.
Contact: Graham Bidois Cameron, tel 021 642 414, email bidoiscameron@paradise.net.nz
Comments
Awesome!
Ka pai
Congradulations to the defendants on their aquittal this is a victory for activists in Aotearoa & all anti war/base activits around the world
This judgment means that
This judgment means that we're all legally entitled to intentionally damage others' property so long as we believe that we're justified in doing so.
Not sound social policy.
The Ploughshares are earnest,
The Ploughshares are earnest, deeply religious people who live their faith and don't believe in immodest gloating.
I however do.
So Lentil,
IN YOUR FUCKING FACE. THEY GOT OFF. FUCKING DEAL WITH IT. WHATEVER WILL YOU DO NOW?
Answer: wait for the
Answer: wait for the appeal.
By the way - thanks for your mature, considered response. I hope you enjoy being a slummy, smelly, low-life beneficiary. Jackass.
Way to assume my
Way to assume my socio-economic status. I do quite well for myself actually.
The fact is, I don't believe opposition is worth arguing with when it can be ignored, run around or in some cases set fire to.
Thanks. Since you would
Thanks. Since you would rather trade personal insults than debate the issues, I assumed you were stupid, and therefore poor. Maybe that was wrong.
Let me try again - I hope you enjoy being an immature, stupid, ignorant, child. Jackass,
Stupid and ignorant I won't
Stupid and ignorant I won't plead guilty to. I'm well aware of the issues and that people such as yourself are concerned that this will lead to an alarming precendent that will undermine the rule of law.
Personally I'm quite happy for that to happen because there's all sorts of illegal things that I quite enjoy doing and am of the firm belief that the enforced order laid down by society is something to be skirted around if it gets in my way. I just try to watch my back.
So there you have my poiunt of view on things. I couldn't give a jot of concern about the law so therefore have nothing to be upset about. It also follow I have no time for cops, spies or any sort of enforcement agents down to petty parking wardens so it amuses me greatly to see someone get one over them, even if it turns out to be merely a temporary victory.
A truly free individual finds there own path through the monolithic obstacles laid down by our, lets admit it, somewhat creaky and malfunctioning society and takes responsibility for their own self defence, whether you be a christian pacifist deflating a spy dome used to aid foreign war efforts or just some ne'er do well who'd rather rely on a rusty object for protection than the so-called authorities.
PS: I enjoy trading insults. It's a fine art. You could do with some practice. At the moment you've not achieved much better than "peeved high school teacher".
You're clearly an idiot:
Selective use of a dictionary
Monolithic can also mean:
1.of or pertaining to a monolith. 2.made of only one stone: a monolithic column.3.consisting of one piece; solid or unbroken: a boat with a monolithic hull.
4.constructed of monoliths or huge blocks of stone: the monolithic monuments of the New Stone Age.
5.characterized by massiveness, total uniformity, rigidity, invulnerability, etc.: a monolithic society.
6.Electronics. of or pertaining to an integrated circuit formed in a single chip.This dummy can understand what the poster above was trying to say, even if the big brain on Lentil could not.
Here we go...What "A
Here we go...
What "A different policeman" meant to write was "monolithic society", a phrase that typifies the kind of ill-defined pseudo-academic babble-speak you hear from university indoctrinated idiots. He'd obviously picked up the concept while "doing some reading" and "educating himself" on "social issues".
So, Yes. I understand what he was trying to say. But he stuffed it up when he referred to the obstacles, rather than society, as being "monolithic". I mocked him for it accordingly.
Let's not make this a debate about semantics. You will lose.
Well there you go everybody.
Well there you go everybody. Better not try to educate yourself about anything as it's completely futile. You'll just inevitably be crushed by the sheer intellectual collosus that is Lentil.
Well put :)I just think
Well put :)
I just think there's a difference between 'education' and 'indoctrination'. Phrases like 'monolithic society' smack of the latter. Anyway, we're off topic now. Perhaps we should keep comments focussed on the issue at hand?
I'm willing to be you're an
I'm willing to be you're an angry nerd who doesn't get laid much.
Funny, I was thinking the
Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.
Religious???
What’s so religious with fantasizing over the drinking of the blood and eating the flesh of a man who died 2000 years ago......that’s not religious dude, that’s missguided and dam right primitive!!!
Peter Terry
http://www.myspace.com/nambassa
This is an abusive comment.
This is an abusive comment. The editorial collective ought to hide this comment without notice, as per the Editorial Policy of A-IMC
It's a valid enough comment.
It's a valid enough comment. Badly put maybe but a legitimate opinion. Mind you I wouldn't expect Trotsky to value free speech.
I think he's talking about
I think he's talking about the comments from "Hard over this" aka "A different policeman" aka "tane" aka "anarchovegan":
Quite right, Lentil.And
Quite right, Lentil.
And Kronstadt, if by valuing "free speech" you mean encouraging abusive remarks, of course I don't value that.
But I do value a frank discussion of the court decision in the Waihopai 3 case. No doubt, Kronstant you will disagree with the argument I make below. Which, in your simple mind, will lead you to abuse me, or call me a fascist or something equally infantile
Of course the Waihopai 3 have the right to protest about the war in Iraq. The law provides and protects that right.
But no right is absolute, all rights must be balanced with one another in order to maintain a peaceful and harmonious society. For instance, the rights of free speech does not extend to allowance of wanton and intentional destruction of private property, whatever just cause may be felt by the Waihopai 3.
Think of the message this sends to the public: You may destroy property to draw attention to your cause, if you feel your cause is just. But some people will almost certainly disagree about the justice of your cause (they have a right of free speech too, you know Kronstant). What if I put a bomb under an abortion clinic? Or a battery hen farm? Or an animal rights activist? In all cases, I may feel justified, but that doesn't make it right.
So, I think the court reached the wrong decision...queue verbal abuse
Don't call yourself 'Trotsky'
Why bother calling yourself 'Trotsky, unless you are trying to make the biggest joke on this page?
"all rights must be balanced with one another in order to maintain a peaceful and harmonious society. For instance, the rights of free speech does not extend to allowance of wanton and intentional destruction of private property"
Trotsky did not see capitalist society in the age of imperialism as at all "peaceful and harmonious" and he certainly didn't see his role as that of protecting private property.
Nor would he have been silly enough to describe the spy base as "private property" - it is state property, and it isn't of any use whatsoever to the population. It is actually used by world's rulers against the majority of the world's population.
Perhaps it's just a wind up.
Perhaps it's just a wind up. I'm a long time reader/first time poster and I've noticed that nobody around here seems to have much in the way of a sense of humour. People that take themselves ultra-seriously tend to leave themselves wide open.
Just a thought.
Abusive comment??
There is nothing abusive about stating the historical facts. Catholics and Ploughshares members do practice communion or eat Eucharist, where wine and bread is turned into the body & blood of Jesus at Mass by the officiating priest, through some hocus-pocus spell the priest commits called transubstantiation. The congregation at Sunday Mass then fantasise they eat Jesus’ body and drink his blood after the priest places the wafer or host in their mouth. This is so that they can be to be one with Jesus! Holy Communion is a primitive pagan rite as old as civilisation itself, which was also practiced by ancient Egyptian cults and Roman Mithras advocates.
The philosophical thinking behind religious cannibalism as practiced by the archaic Christian system is as old as civilisation itself and is even practiced amongst some obscure groups in Africa and around the Pacific today. The absurd beliefs of the primitives who undertook literal mortuary feasts were that; to eat the vital body parts (heart, brain, liver etc) and drink the blood of one presumed of greatness or holy, then any powers held by the victim would be usurped by mortuary participant. Some Frescos on the ancient Roman catacombs seem to provide that early Roman & Jewish Pauline Christians were participating in secrete underground mortuary feasts. The Romans accused the early Pauline Christians affiliated to St. Paul of being cannibals because they were!
When the Romans (who oppose human sacrifice) eventually plagiarized St. Paul’s ancient Christian church as their own religion, they turned literal human sacrifice & cannibalism into a symbolic pageant called communion or Eucharist which formed the basis of today’s Catholic mass pageant where Jesus is brutally re-slain and then symbolically eaten by the congregation. Why do you think Catholic today still hold such an unhealthy obsession or reverence for Jesus’ blood and his heart pump?
Some of the Ploughshares protests at British military bases involved the sprinkling of blood over aircraft and runways!
Peter Terry
http://www.myspace.com/nambassa
Trotsky wasn't referring to
Trotsky wasn't referring to your comment as abusive, he was referring to the comment by "Hard over this" to me which said "In your fucking face... etc".
Stop crying already.Are you
Stop crying already.
Are you always this sensitive? I almost feel bad now.
Sorry. I cut whale meat and
Sorry. I cut whale meat and beagle brains out of my diet. Now I'm getting the worst mood swings.
Who cares? Cheers Sam
Who cares?
Cheers
Sam Buchanan
I meant who cares about their
I meant who cares about their (possibly daft) religious practices? If they like it what's the problem?
No problem, IMHO. Last time I
No problem, IMHO. Last time I looked we were a tolerant society that respected freedom of religion and celebrated the diverse spiritual practices of its citizens. Long may that continue.
Waihopai Ploughshares Trial
The Government Communications Security Bureau(GCSB) will have become nervous after the action of the Waihopai Ploughshares in deflating one of the concealing domes of the communications satellite dishes in the Waihopai valley near Blenheim in April of 2008. This brought the case into the public eye in the court case in Wellington just concluded yesterday (Wednesday 17th), while the GCSB is always desirous (indeed desparate) to keep out of the public eye.
The acquittal verdict also has put pressure on the GCSB to respond, though as of Thursday they have said they will not be commenting “today”. But I think the GCSB and the security state in general will see opportunities come out of this case as well as difficulties.
As I saw the arguments unfold the last few days of the trial, the case was actually decided on a narrow legal point which only barely allowed the larger issues to penetrate. The defendants legal position was a “claim of right” under New Zealand law that what they did was lawful because they were helping prevent a larger crime, namely the killing, maiming, torturing, etc of innocent civilians in Iraq and other places.
However, the judge specifically and simply ruled that this was incorrect, that they did not have recourse to this defense under New Zealand law. He gave no explanation in the court when I was present as to why he ruled that way, and I doubt that the jury heard any such explanation, as it seemed the judge simply wanted to say that that was irrelevant to the guilt or innocence of the defendants.
What the judge ruled, and did explain at some length and repeat, was that the primary legal issue in the case was what was the defendants belief, at the time of the actions they were accused of, about the lawfulness of those actions under New Zealand law. New Zealand law does allow that a defendant's belief in the lawfulness of their actions is enough to prove innocence.
It was here that the defendants testimony of their knowledge of the operations of the spy base and the horrendous uses of communications information taken at Waihopai by the National Security Agency (NSA) in Washington DC, USA, their long history of involvement in social justice issues, and the strength of the character witnesses presented on their behalf, came into play. The prosecution made a lame case in trying to say the defendants did not believe they were acting lawfully. It was convincing to the jury that because of all this, that the defendants did in fact believe, though erroneously, that what they did to the dome would be considered lawful under New Zealand law today.
To me this seems a very narrow point of law. The more important issue is the higher law of protecting humanity over protecting “plastic” as defendant Adrian Leeson put it in his post trial interview on TV3. New Zealand law ought to allow “claim of right” defense in these circumstances I think. New Zealand organizations and individuals interested in social justice issues, issues of war and peace, should, and are now, making strong statements in favour of that.
But the GCSB and the security state will take some comfort from the fact that the judge ruled in this case that the “claim of right” defense does not apply in cases such as this. They will be able to say that now that the case has come to court those considering similar actions of non-violent civil disobedience will know that their actions would not be legal under New Zealand law and that conviction would be assured.
Furthermore they may consult with their lackies in this ACT (supposedly National) government to try to change the law so that a sincere belief in one's innocence under the law, at least in instances such as this involving “national security”, is no protection against guilt in a court of law.
What would be their chances? Given there is no strong prospect of an alternative government returning in the foreseeable future, they will have time to work it through. How would the public of New Zealand respond to such an attempt? I don't know, but just to note the Stuff poll today asked the question, “Should the 'greater good defence' used by the Waihopai 3 be acceptable in NZ courts?” The reponse a bit ago when I looked was a ratio of 3-1 'No'. The GCSB and the security state may take heart from this.
how wonderful
I feel hope-full. Not because of the legal situation, necessarily. But because people on that jury were moved. By the powerful combination of the brutal truth of war and a strong, loving alternative - I suspect.
Grateful thanks to the deflatants, their supporters, the jury, and the God/dess.
I completely disagree.The
I completely disagree.
The "greater good" defense is nonsense. An otherwise illegal act should not be made legal just because the person doing it believes that he or she is justified by some "greater good".
That would not only make the law highly uncertain (what is a "greater good"? who decides?) but also give the green light to anyone who felt strongly enough about an issue that they felt compelled to damage another's property. That is wrong.
You should bear in mind, anyone could claim greater good, including those who are fundamentally opposed to your moral paradigm - racist skinheads, free market capitalists, etc.
The system will not stand for
The system will not stand for this type of citizens initiated action against its tyrannical support of the slaughter of millions of Iraqi people. No doubt they will find a way to appeal this jury ruling.
...and there it is, double
...and there it is, double jeopardy anyone?
Crown considers appeal in spybase case
It's not double jeopardy.
It's not double jeopardy. It's an appeal on a question of law that was reserved at trial. They are two separate concepts, although it's understandable that its confusing to the layperson.
The Spy Valley 3 will be tried again only if the appeals Court decides that the Judge gave incorrect instructions to the jury - i.e. the trial was flawed.
Double jeopardy only applies where there is no question about the integrity of the original trial.
re
It was clearly a flawed decision. Religous fanatics should not be above the law simply because they believe in a 'higher law' as they claimed.
They obviously didn't care much about their brother and sister taxpayers whom not only elected the democratic government that allows the base but will also be forking up to repair it and pay for the costs of the trial as well.
They would also have earnt much more respect and public sympathy (which is now largely turned against them) had they simply manned up rather than trying to get off by twisting a law that is there to safeguard honest mistakes, not blatant criminality.
Shame.
Great point, Dexter. Shame
Great point, Dexter. Shame that the A-IMC "editorial collective" will hide it. They do that whenever somebody puts forward a view contrary to the general tone of things on this website
Since they will be again put
Since they will be again put in jeopardy, how is a retrial not 'twice put in jeopardy' (apologees in advance for my 'laypersons' reading of the term).
Double jeopardy prevents a
Double jeopardy prevents a person from being tried twice for the same crime on the same set of facts. It doesn't apply if there is some procedural flaw at the first trial.
If there is a procedural flaw either party can appeal. If the appeals Court agrees that there was a flaw it can void the original verdict and order a re-trial. This is not double jeopardy because the first trial is effectively nullified by the procedural flaw.
A hypothetical example might help. If the Judge incorrectly explained "claim of right" to the jury and a "guilty" verdict had been returned the Defense would be able to appeal. The appeal Court could then void the "guilty" verdict and order a re-trial.
That's a simplified explanation. In practice it's more complicated. But I hope it gives you a general idea...
Thanks for that. I guess I am
Thanks for that. I guess I am trying to see this from the defendants perspective I suppose where they will probably have to run the gauntlet again probably because this action of theirs is deemed as an attack on the country's government. If it had been a general vandalism charge on say a car, would the Crown be so driven to appeal?
Re: Why the government might
Re: Why the government might appeal
If the Govt appeals I think it's because of a worry that some people might think the verdict means "you can legally damage property if it's for political purposes". That's obviously a pretty dangerous message to send to the public in a high profile case this like.
Re: Double jeopardy
At the trial, the Court "reserved" a question of law about the Judge's explanation of the "claim of right" defense to the jury. This means that the Crown can appeal and ask the appeal Court to decide whether that explanation of the law was correct. If the appeal Court thinks the explanation was wrong and resulted in a "substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice" at trial then it can order a retrial.
So the original verdict was reached with everyone knowing that the Crown thought the Judge's explanation of the "claim of right" defense was wrong and could appeal and ask the appeals Court for a re-trial (if the appeal Court agreed that the trial Judge's explanation was incorrect and that resulted in a "substantial wrong or miscarriage of justice).
Does that help?
Abortion
Father Peter Munane is from the Dominican Order of Catholicism. It's probably safe to assume he's anti-abortion. Does this judgment mean he can legally damage abortion clinics because he has a claim of right, in the form of his views on abortion?
If someone decided to attack
If someone decided to attack an abortion clinic and use that defense then they would have to convince a jury in the same manner, considering not all juries are the same and the circumstances behind the attack that popped the spybase bubble i.e. the illegal murderous invasion of Iraq, in this country has wide public support as most NZders are against that 'illegal' war, while at the same time most hold divided views on the morality of abortion clinics.
However there already is international precedence in this arena where in May 2007 two activists were cleared of conspiring to cause criminal damage at an RAF base in Gloucestershire, England where they had tried to sabotage B-52 bombers at the start of the Iraq war, and successfully claimed they were trying to prevent war crimes.
So its not a new method of dealing with this type of action its just the first time it has happened in this country. What is no surprise to me though is the predictable backlash from status quo activists who while maybe being opposed to the war in Iraq, are opposed to direction action that may in some way hinder the ability of the war criminals to commit war crimes through the asset this country gifts to them....a spy base.
That somehow the property or war criminals or this countries idealist view on asset protection, is of more importance than the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed in that war.
If it had been a Nazi German spy base run for the Nazis in the lead up to WW2, the army would have been sent there to dismantle it and toss it in the dump.
What is it about this countries allegience to the USA that results in it turning a blind eye when that countries govt commits war crimes against another country. Is it that the 'king can do no wrong'?
Great post
Great post
So you're saying whether
So you're saying whether something is legal or illegal now depends on the moral views of the jury selected for any given case? If that's true, it further underscores how ridiculous the decision is. Justice would be a matter of luck, not law.
Tena koe Lentil2, In this
Tena koe Lentil2,
In this case a precedence had already been set with the B-52 bomber case in the UK. While that is not binding on this countries judiciary, it does give a guideline for judges to instruct juries on and gives juries a base to begin their deliberations from. Act utilitarianism is certainly a moral and ethical defense for the defendants to use but it is nevertheless a legitimate legal defense in this country, in Australia, USA, Canada and the UK to name a few.
To give a more clear example of how this defense could be used, lets take for example a forest fire that is threatening to destroy an entire suburb so the civil defense people bring in bulldozers and flatten out one street of houses in order to create a firebreak to save the other 80% of the neighbourhood.
In that example there would be little discussion by the general population as to whether this action was morally right or not, its the perfect greater good scenario in action. So in this case with the ploughshares people, the judge seems to have agreed to the idea of greater good but also instructed the jury on the myns rea of the defendants minds, was the greater good they believed they were achieving of more prominence in their mind than the guilt of the action of destruction (just a guess though since I wasn't at the trial).
The only reason we haven't heard more about it is that most barristers consider the NZ judicial to be too conservative to entertain the idea and as a general rule they are.
go away ,im sure theres
go away ,im sure theres plenty of right wing blogs where you will made to feel welcome with your 'enlightened' views
your pathetic
go away ,im sure theres
go away ,im sure theres plenty of right wing blogs where you will made to feel welcome with your 'enlightened' views
your pathetic lentil
I'm as entitled to post here
I'm as entitled to post here as you are. The whole point of this forum is to allow unmoderated, uncensored news and analysis. If you don't like it, then don't come here. Stop being an intolerant hypocrite.
if i was moderating this i
if i was moderating this i would block your posts ,you are a tosser! just take a look at yr hidden posts lentil 1 and 2 ,whos the one whos intolerant?
your a dick who doesnt have a life thats why you keep coming here ,get a life moron
if i was moderating this i
if i was moderating this i would block your posts ,you are a tosser! just take a look at yr hidden posts lentil 1 and 2 ,whos the one whos intolerant?
your a dick who doesnt have a life thats why you keep coming here ,get a life moron
the whole idea of this website isnt for right wing hicks to spam posts with their rubbish eh
tane is obviously a troll
tane is obviously a troll using my name. ban him ta,
That happened to me too!!!
That happened to me too!!! Someone registered username 'Lentil'. Now I have to post under 'Lentil2'. What's the bet it's the same person?
You can see that 'tane' is also posting under at least one other alias" 'veganarcho'. I think he might also be 'Hard over this' and 'A different policeman'.
His comments are abusive and disruptive. Please hide his posts (and responses) and if possible BAN HIM.
New Zealand is signed on to
New Zealand is signed on to the anti-fascist covenants through the New Zealand First Division that fought the nazis-fascist state up the boot of Italy during the second world war. The anti-fascist law most appropriate here it seems is called the NUREMBURG TRIALS (1945) Chaired by the U.S. Judge Jackson which says, as international and national law in the western world, that the planning and doing of aggressive war is the supreme international crime on the planet earth as it actuates all other crimes high, low, big and small. He further says that it is the supreme international crime whether Germany does it or the U.S.A. does it.
The Trials also stipulate in law that no soldier needs to follow unjust orders. Henceforth all soldiers cannot use the ruse of "Oh I was just following orders" and the country cannot punish them for refusing an unjust order. This article is great news because the folks in ploughshares are following the anti-fascist covenant exactly. This spy station of U.S. Imperialism is a war machne, engaged in an unjust war of aggression against a country that did not make any threat to the U.S.A., and that Bush and Blair lied and made an aggressive war by false pretenses.
The fact is this ploughshares group has caused the liberation side of the conflict a victory, and this court has shown wisdom beyond the Imperialist falsity and lying pretenses for war. Technology ought only to be used for liberation purposes, and not as a tool for the supression of the Organic ecological balances of Peoples, plants or animals.
There is a case in the UK-IMC of the sending to prison of a British Soldier named Joe Glenton, who got nine months in jail for refusing to deploy to the untold horror going on in Iraq and for his second time, against a fellow nation member of the United Nations.
The people of Iraq are dying by the thousands of cancer from the DU--depleated uranium, shot at them and dying from not having clean drinking water because the U.S. Imperialist aggression has left the land of two rivers with destroyed infastructure which causes sickness and death to Iraqi millions and since the illegal invasion and occupation, of 2003 over one million three hundred thousand deaths.
These war crimes will be punished in due time, and those who ordered it prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and that is the anti-fascist covenants. These ploughshare people are not guilty of any crime whatsoever and they are upholding the Holy Bible and Christian values that say in ISAIAH--2-4 'they shall beat their swords into ploughshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore'. In modern parlance this translates to destroy a spy station used to war against an innocent people.
That the spybase exists and
That the spybase exists and remains as one New Zealand's greatest contributions to the WAR OF TERROR shows that we still need to fight for disarmament and peace. Solidarity to the Waihopai Ploughshares!
couldn,t agree
couldn,t agree more...excellent outcome!
Lentil3 has no association
Lentil3 has no association with the Lentil or Lentil2 usernames. Lentil3 is an imposter trying to pass him/herself off as me. That is in breach of the editorial policy and so the above post should be hidden and the user banned.
Thanks,
The Real Lentil.
Now for that godamned
Now for that godamned chemical weapons factory in new plymouth.
Now we KNOW it is safe to shut down.
Great outcome and again great
Great outcome and again great work to the freedom fighters whose actions exposed the sheer level of complicency the NZ Government has in the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi people by not sending troops to Iraq to appease the majority of people in this country who oppose the illegal war, but allowing the US gov to continue to use this country as a base for its warmongering and murderous intelligencia.