On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 17:34:36 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, 07 Apr 2017 02:19:47 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net
dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Thu, 06 Apr 2017 08:18:54 +1200, Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> >>>>>wrote:

On Tue, 04 Apr 2017 21:12:19 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 03 Apr 2017 01:51:21 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

Rich80105<rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, 02 Apr 2017 23:33:05 -0500, Tony <lizandtony at orcon dot net >>>>>>>>>>dot nz> wrote:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91163021/no-basis-for-probe-into-hager-book-allegations-says-english

Good, now let us move on to something important and let the grubby >>>>>>>>>>>little
muck
rakers, who only want to bring down our brave troops, plot their >>>>>>>>>>>next
failure!
And let the army get on with the job they do so well. >>>>>>>>>>>Tony

All it may take is someone making a complaint to the International >>>>>>>>>>Criminal Court . . .

Of course that is possible, just what I would expect from those that >>>>>>>>>want
to
damage our well deserved reputation as international peacekeepers. >>>>>>>>>You write as if you would like that to happen?
Tony

Personally I wopuld have preferred even a "quick and dirty" >>>>>>>>investigation by New Zealand, much as has been advocated by Wayne Mapp >>>>>>>>and Audrey Young, but a refusal to investigate puts us in a different >>>>>>>>category. You are aware that there are lawyers who have volunteered to >>>>>>>>seek compensation for the victims? I will not personally do anything, >>>>>>>>and I suspect you will not either, but taking cognisence of the next >>>>>>>>likely actions by others is just common sense.

A 'quick and dirty" investigation would have delivered nothing that has >>>>>>>not
already been seen to be true, in other words the NZDF advice.
Of course I am aware that some lawyers want to follow this up, that is >>>>>>>their
prerogative but it doesn't mean anything; just that they want to >>>>>>>exercise
their
right. Their involvement or otherwise is meaningless in terms of the >>>>>>>truth.
I
wonder who is funding them! Taking cognisance (correctly spelled) of any >>>>>>>future
actions whether likely or not is of zero value and therefore of no >>>>>>>interest
to
me.
Tony

Wayne Mapp said (I have oncluded other paragraphs for context):

"But for New Zealand, is that the end of the matter? Do we hold >>>>>>ourselves to a higher standard?

For me, it is not enough to say there might have been civilian >>>>>>casualties. As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the >>>>>>extent reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if >>>>>>they did, to properly acknowledge that.

This does not necessarily require an independent inquiry, such as >>>>>>lawyer Deborah Manning wants. In fact we are most likely to get this >>>>>>sort of information through diplomatic approaches to the Afghan >>>>>>government, and trusted NGO’s on the ground.

We do not require fault for injury to be compensated in our own >>>>>>country. ACC is a no-fault system of compensation. The Treaty of >>>>>>Waitangi compensation is not primarily motivated by an accounting for >>>>>>fault. It is part of Afghan culture that compensation is made in >>>>>>recognition of loss.This is a process of restorative justice, rather >>>>>>than determining liability.

On this measure, the accounts of the NZDF and Stephenson are >>>>>>reconcilable, given the recognition that civilian casualties may have >>>>>>occurred.

New Zealand has good reason to be proud of the professionalism of its >>>>>>defence forces. The SAS are among the most highly trained and >>>>>>respected soldiers in the world. In our name, we ask them to undertake >>>>>>the most hazardous military missions, often deep within enemy held >>>>>>territory. They have an absolute right to defend themselves against >>>>>>attack. The risk of capture of our soldiers by the Taliban would be >>>>>>beyond contemplation.

Part of protecting their reputation is also finding out what happened, >>>>>>particularly if there is an allegation that civilian casualties may >>>>>>have been accidentally caused. In that way we both honour the >>>>>>soldiers, and also demonstrate to the Afghans that we hold ourselves >>>>>>to the highest ideals of respect of life, even in circumstances of >>>>>>military conflict. "

Diplomatic approachs is not he same thing as just relying on the >>>>>>changing accounts from the NZDF.

The Dom-Post also expressed a view in its editorial yesterday : >>>>>>http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/comment/editorials/91199652/editorial-bill-english-leaves-the-critical-question-over-an-sas-raid-hanging

And Brian Rudman: >>>>>http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11831611
"Prime Minister Bill English might have successfully stonewalled the >>>>>clamour for a public inquiry into the 2010 SAS raids in Afghanistan if >>>>>he and the military had been able to sell the lie that it was all the >>>>>figment of the fevered imaginations of a couple of conspiracy >>>>>theorists.

But Wayne Mapp, the National Government Defence Minister at the time >>>>>of the raids, has effectively blocked that escape route. Dr Mapp says >>>>>that "As a nation we owe it to ourselves to find out, to the extent >>>>>reasonably possible, if civilian causalities did occur, and if they >>>>>did, to properly acknowledge that."

Mapp can't be vilified as a leftist trouble-making peacenik. Before >>>>>politics he was an Auckland University professor teaching commercial >>>>>and international law. He was also a reservist major in the NZ Army, >>>>>specialising in intelligence. Since 2012 he's been a Law >>>>>Commissioner."

The only evidence is opinion and there can be no logic in suggesting that >>>>sources in an accusation of this magnitude should not be published.

What a load of rubbish. The only evidence is evidence - and yes there
is opinion following up that evidence. The NZDF and the authors of the >>>book effectively agree on the evidence - it is just the opinion that >>>differs

As I have previously said - put up or shut up. Real evidence will lead to >>>>investigation or similar, opinion is worthless nonsense in this case and >>>>indeed
in most cases.

There is real evidence - testimony to The Herlad needs to be added;
they accept it as true, and it may have also come from a different SAS >>>soldier. There is a case to answer - and it should be answered. To >>>expect all elements of an investigation to be open to the public is as >>>laughable as claiming that Keating is "independent" - in criminal
trials there is provision to prptect sources in some cases.

Hager and co are abysmal reflections of real journalists. If they were real >>>>and
professional they would have revealed their sources and they would have had >>>>to
test their opinions by consulting with NZDF - they did not and that >>>>condemns
them to the very special gutter that is set aside for those that hide >>>>behind
a
pretence of journalism but in reality is thinly disguised political crap. >>>>Tony

And that is pure opinion - which is contrary to the opinion of Wayne >>>Mapp, who has some expereience with the issuies involved - and they
are not just about what happened before during and after the raid >>>overseas, but also the changing stories from NZDF to various
politicians. At the very least it is evident that Mapp as Minister was >>>not given all the facts he should have been given - that leads to
doubts about governance.

Can you identify any matter of fact on which the NZDF and the authors
of the book disagree?

Again you miss the obvious.
There is no evidence that indicates that a war crime has been committed. >>There is no dispute that there was action but there is no reason to believe >>that innocent people were deliberately targetted.
Until evidence of that is provided there is no evidence of value.
Tony

There is no evidence that adequate care was taken to avoid civilian >casuatlies.
There is evidence that NZDF did not adequately inform the Minister at
the time, Wayne Mapp of the results of the operation, and that there
are grounds for suspicion that they have not adequately informed other >Ministers in relatin to that theatre of operations.
There is evidence that NZ forces delivered a prisoner into the hands
of others knowing that he would be tortured
There are cases to answer. It should not be required that a crime has
been committed for our police to investigate the possibility. It
should not be required that a war crime has been committed for our
forces to be investigated.
Enough?