Friday 28 November 2014

New Zealand: a day in the fascist state - 11/27/2014

We live in a a time of cover-up and lies, lies and more lies.

John Banks conviction overturned




28 November, 2014

Amanda Banks has emerged as an extremely good wife to John Banks with her "obsessive" detective work turning up crucial evidence which led to the former Act Leader's electoral fraud conviction being overturned today.

Mr Banks was today celebrating after the Court of Appeal overturned his conviction and ordered a new trial.
He was convicted in the High Court earlier this year after failing to disclose donations from Kim Dotcom to his Auckland Mayoralty campaign in 2010.
Mr Banks appealed, introducing affidavits from two US-based businessmen who he says were at the same lunch at which Mr Dotcom claimed donations were discussed. The pair - David Schaeffer and Jeffery Karnes - both said donations were not discussed at that lunch.

John Banks in the dock in Auckland's High Court before his sentencing in August.
Photo / Richard Robinson




In a statement, the Court of Appeal said it had decided to admit the evidence. "Although it was not fresh evidence, the Court was satisfied that if the evidence has been before [High Court judge] Justice Wylie the outcome may have been different. It was in the interests of justice to admit the evidence."
Mrs Banks, who now lives apart from her Auckland based husband in Queenstown, was present at the lunch in question and was a key witness in the High Court hearing.
The Court of Appeal's decision notes Mrs Banks ``was stung by the Judge's opinion of her reliability".
"She became quite obsessed as she puts it, with identifying the two Americans.
"She recalled that a trans-Pacific communications cable had been discussed at the lunch and scoured news articles on the topic, eventually finding one which mentioned that Mr Dotcom had endorsed such a project and was trying to organize a group of investors to fund it."
Mrs Banks' research also identified the second businessman and Mr Banks' lawyers contacted to two men and secured sworn affidavits from them.
But Dotcom this afternoon told the Herald: "I'm just shaking my over John Banks. I just don't understand how he thinks this is going to change things."
He said the meeting with the American businessmen took place "a couple of days before the donation meeting".
"I think the meetings with the Americans was either on the 5th or 6th (of June 2010) and the meeting with the donations was I believe on the 9th.
"The cheques were dated on the day when I signed them which I think was the 9th.
"What Mr Banks is trying to do is use another meeting that had nothing to do with the donations and make it about the donations.
"That also doesn't work because in his own police evidence he has himself said that we did have discussions about donations."
Mr Banks told the Herald he had not yet seen the judgement and had only learned of the decision via the media however it was "more than pretty good, it's great news."
"Remember what I said on day one - I would never ever knowingly sign a false electoral return."
He will speak to media further later this afternoon.
In finding Mr Banks guilty, the High Court's Justice Edwin Wylie had said Kim Dotcom and his wife Mona had been credible witnesses. The Court of Appeal statement said that its decision did not mean that they were unreliable witnesses. "It merely establishes that the evidence should be reconsidered at a new trial."

Mona Dotcom was found to be a credible witness. Photo / Doug Sherring

Mr Banks had consistently maintained the donations, and a further donation from SkyCity, were anonymous.
During the judge-alone trial in June, the Crown argued Banks' failed mayoral campaign received two $25,000 donations from Megastuff Ltd on Mr Dotcom's behalf in June 2010 and $15,000 from SkyCity in May that year.
On August 1 in the High Court at Auckland, Justice Edwin Wylie sentenced the 68-year-old to two months' community detention and 100 community work, Mr Banks said he would appeal, citing "compelling new evidence".
Justice Wylie had ruled the charge in relation to the SkyCity donation was not proven but he believed Mr Dotcom was telling the truth.

Kim Dotcom gives evidence in Auckland's High Court in May. Photo / Brett Phibbs


Kim Dotcom broke, defenseless and facing jail time


27 November, 2014


Kim Dotcom has returned to court today to face a bail hearing that he says could lead to him being returned to jail.

The internet mogul said nothing to reporters as he walked into the Auckland District Court and through security in the foyer.
The hearing follows an appearance on Monday at which his bail conditions were tightened to mean he is no longer allowed to use helicopters or travel by boat, and must remain within 80 kilometres of his home in Coatesville, north of Auckland.

COURT DATE: Kim Dotcom arrives at court in Auckland for a bail hearing.COURT DATE: Kim Dotcom arrives at court in Auckland for a bail hearing.

New Zealand gets headlines for all the wrong reasons.

A bit rich coming from the Establishment paper in the US, the Police State, the country leading the way down the road to fascism and which pulls all the strings here.

Civil Liberties in Peril Down Under

NYT,
27 November, 2014


That decision came after Dotcom's previous legal team, behind his three-year-long, $10 million battle to fend off extradition to the US, withdrew from the case.
His new lawyer, Ron Mansfield, then succeeded in getting the bail hearing delayed until today so he could read the files. The hearing takes place at Auckland District Court at 10am.
In a video speech to a group of online entrepreneurs this week, Dotcom said the bid to extradite him had "drained my resources and dehydrated me" and that he had no lawyers and was defenceless.
"I am having a bail hearing where they are trying to lock me up and put me in jail again," Dotcom said. "This might be the last public appearance."
He said that the United States Government had taken all his assets gained before the 2012 raid on his Coatesville property. After he began the Internet Party before this year's election, the Motion Picture Association of America took civil action for his assets.
"So I'm officially broke right now," he said.
His shares in the web upload service Mega were held in trust by his estranged wife and five children



Australia and New Zealand are not among the usual suspects when it comes to state suppression of civil liberties. But both countries, stung by Edward J. Snowden’s revelations last year about their intelligence-gathering efforts, have been cracking down on the press: Australia has passed sweeping secrecy laws, while police officers in New Zealand recently raided the home of a reporter who had published information regarding a government scandal.

There has been little international outcry, and Washington is hardly likely to be upset: The two countries harbor the only major intelligence gathering facilities for the National Security Agency in the Southern Hemisphere, and, along with Britain, Canada and the United States, are members of the intelligence-sharing arrangement known as the “Five Eyes.”

In New Zealand, the journalist targeted in the raid is the country’s top investigative reporter, Nicky Hager, who has been working with Mr. Snowden and the journalist Glenn Greenwald. Mr. Hager has “long been a pain in the establishment’s neck,” a former prime minister of New Zealand, David Lange, once said, admiringly.

In 1996 Mr. Hager published his book “Secret Power,” which revealed the relationship between the N.S.A. and New Zealand. Mr. Lange said that he learned more about what the N.S.A. was doing in his country from reading Mr. Hager’s reporting than he did as prime minister.

Across the Tasman Sea, the Australian government recently amended the country’s national security laws so that journalists and whistle-blowers who publish details of “special intelligence operations” may be sentenced to up to 10 years in prison.

The measures are part of a groundswell of terrorism hysteria. September brought the largest counterterrorism raids in Australian history, in which some 800 state and federal police officers raided homes in several Sydney suburbs with large Muslim populations, acting on what officials said was an intercepted phone call about possible activity by allies of the Islamic State, also known as ISIS.

For all the forces deployed in the raids, only one person was arrested and charged with a terrorism-related crime; in a court appearance in mid-November, his lawyer said the telephone conversation had been mistranslated.

The press has added to the hysteria, spreading a story that Islamic State followers were plotting a public beheading in a square in downtown Sydney — a claim no public official has made, and a claim for which there is virtually no evidence.

A week after the raids, the ruling center-right Liberal Party proposed the national security amendments aimed at the press and leaks; the opposition Labor Party supported them, and the changes passed with little debate.

Tellingly, one of the few votes against the bill came from a former intelligence official. “This is disgraceful, absolutely disgraceful,” said Andrew Wilkie, an independent member of Parliament from Tasmania. Mr. Wilkie had resigned from the country’s intelligence service in early 2003 in protest against the lack of evidence in the claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction.

Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story

But it seems the Australian government is motivated by more than just terrorism fears. A year ago, based on information provided by Mr. Snowden, The Guardian Australia newspaper and the Australian Broadcasting Company, the public broadcaster, reported that Australian intelligence had bugged the mobile telephones of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono of Indonesia, his wife and eight of his top aides.

This was far more serious than just an embarrassment to the Australian government. It caused a serious rupture in diplomatic relations — Indonesia recalled its ambassador, and he didn’t return for six months. Indonesia looms large in Australia’s foreign policy constellation, along with the United States, and its major trading partners China and Japan. Cooperation with Indonesia is considered vital in the fight against human trafficking and terrorism.

In New Zealand, the fallout from Mr. Snowden’s leaks has been domestic. At a conference in Auckland in September, Mr. Snowden said, via a video hookup from Moscow, that the New Zealand government and the National Security Agency of the United States were engaged in vast domestic surveillance.

The country’s prime minister, John Key, vigorously denied the charges, but then backtracked after Mr. Snowden released supporting documents, saying that he “may well be right.” Mr. Key added, “I don’t run the N.S.A.”

It came as no surprise to many when, last month, five detectives and a computer engineer raided the home of Mr. Hager, the journalist who has been working with Mr. Snowden. Over a 10-hour period, they took computers, phones, papers, an iPod and a camera.

The raid may also have arisen out of Mr. Hager’s most recent book, “Dirty Politics,” in which he revealed that officials in the prime minister’s center-right National Party government had been supplying derogatory information about opposition politicians to a right-wing blogger. The justice minister was forced to resign.

Whatever the motivation, the raid, like the Australian anti-whistle-blower laws and President Obama’s anti-leak investigations, is certain to have a chilling effect. Of course, such steps are always explained as a result of a careful balancing between national security and civil liberties. What is becoming increasingly clear is that political self-interest — which serves no one except the powers that be — is just as important a factor.

Raymond Bonner is a former New York Times reporter and the author, most recently, of “Anatomy of Injustice: A Murder Case Gone Wrong.”

Turning now to the government's spying bill, the 

terrorist fighters Bill, criticism and opposition is coming from unexpected quarters,such as the former head of the GCSB and right-wing political commentator (straight out of "the Hollow Men"), Matthew Hooten.


I particularly recommend listening to the second interview

Former GCSB director critical of new terrorist fighters law






Otago University political scientist Bryce Edwards and right-wigner, Matthew Hooten, discuss the cotnroversy surrounding Key and his Bill being rushed through Parliament.





This is the latest news.


Advice sought on PM destroying texts

The Green Party has asked the Chief Archivist to look into whether Prime Minister John Key is destroying public records after he revealed he deletes all of his text messages
.
John Key in Wellington in November 2014.
John Key

28 November, 2014

Speaking on behalf of the Prime Minister in Parliament yesterday, senior minister Steven Joyce said Mr Key received about 1000 texts a day and deleted all of them in case he lost his phone.

A Green Party spokesperson said any texts sent or received in his capacity as Prime Minister should be kept, in the interests of accountability under the likes of the Official Information Act.

There would be a public outcry if Mr Key deleted all of his emails, or burned his briefing papers, the spokesperson said.

The party wanted the Chief Archivist to provide advice on whether the destruction of texts is legal.

Digging a hole


Meanwhile, Labour leader Andrew Little said Mr Key had dug himself into a big hole over his communications with right-wing blogger Cameron Slater.

Mr Key is adamant he has not lied or misled New Zealanders over his dealings with Mr Slater but has faced criticism for twice saying he had not been in contact with the blogger about the inquiry into the Security Intelligence Service when the previous night he had, in fact, had a text exchange with him.

Mr Little said it was just not credible.

"I can't understand why John Key, who's been the Prime Minister now for his six years, knows responsibility, has been in very high-pressure situations, why he's insisting on digging in his heels in a way that looks like he's concealing something over all this," he said.

"This all stems from what he did in his own office."

Mr Little said if Mr Key admitted the extent of the contact he had had with Mr Slater, and apologised for his handling of the whole situation, that would satisfy him and most New Zealanders.

However, he had a hunch Mr Key was hiding more about his contact with Mr Slater, he said.

Labour Leader Andrew Little announcing Labours new caucusAndrew Little says the text exchange released by the Prime Minister's Office does not look complete.
Photo: RNZ / Diego Opatowski

Mr Little said the text exchange between the pair released by Mr Key did not look complete.

He said Mr Key had not been able to give straight answers to what seemed like a very simple issue.

"This is not the John Key that we're used to. John Key used to be very straight-up. He has completely gone and lost the plot on this and is looking pretty crooked."


The text exchange


On 26 November, the Prime Minister's Office released the following transcript of the text exchange:

Cameron Slater: [journalist] gave it away to me ... Goff leaked SIS report Nov 24
Prime Minister: It's a joke isn't it. They will attack Jason for talking to u and they break the confidentiality agreement. Classic lab. Nov 24

CS: Yup ... I'm very angry over it ... Goff is the one who leaked oravida stuff too. Nov 24

CS: They still have standard bloggers on staff Nov 24

CS: And Mccarten was involved in hack Nov 24

PM: Hopefully it will all come out in time Nov 24

CS: I wish they would hurry up ... they played the real dirty politics ... even tried to kill me ... I have evidence of. Nov 24


MPs warned over new anti-terror laws

MPs have been warned new anti-terror legislation, as it stands, would allow spies to go on fishing expeditions for information.

Waihopai spy base
The Waihopai spy base in Marlborough.
28 November, 2014

A select committee was sitting through a second day of urgent hearings on a bill which aimed to crack down on terrorist fighters.

More on this story


PM's oversight not very intelligent

The bill would allow the Security Intelligence Service to spy on suspects for up to 48 hours without a warrant.

Privacy Commissioner John Edwards said if agents found nothing of interest, they could then stop, the only consequence being they would have to report they had done so.

"They could have a camera in your bedroom, they could be listening to all your telephone communications, they could be intercepting and viewing your emails and your internet traffic and that could happen for 48 hours just on the say-so of a public servant."

He said the SIS could spy on someone without a warrant and then stop within 48 hours, the only consequence being it would have to report that it had done so.
Former director of the Government Communications Security Bureau Sir Bruce Ferguson said he was particularly worried about giving agencies the power to spy on people for up to 48 hours without a warrant.

"I'm not convinced that you cannot get a warrant within 48 hours if it is that concerning then you can actually have people who are authorised assign warrants on standby if you are worried about the [cricket] World Cup coming up."
He said extreme caution was needed in giving agencies and politicians that kind of power.

The committee will report back to Parliament on Tuesday.


Plea from muslim community to parliamentary committtee






AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL PRESS RELEASE

Government must allow further scrutiny of Countering Terrorist Fighters Bill




As the New Zealand government seeks to rush new through new anti-terror legislation, Amnesty International is raising grave concerns over the speed at which the Bill is being rushed through Parliament and is calling for an extension to the consultation period.


Slamming through legislation in such a short timeframe puts hard won and fundamental human rights at risk. It is a blow to the foundations of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements,” said Amanda Brydon, Advocacy Manager at Amnesty International.


It is dangerous to rush through such measures without proper consultation, careful, thoughtful analysis is needed, not fast-tracking and grandstanding.”


While the Government has an important role in the protection of New Zealand from threats to national security, it has a responsibility to always uphold the very values and freedoms it is trying to defend. To do this it must ensure that any anti-terror protection measures are consistent with international human rights standards, something that has not been adequately done with the current bill.


The cancellation of passports and the increased surveillance of individuals, including circumstances where a warrant is not required, constitutes a fundamental interference with a range of human rights, including the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and freedom of movement.


These are just two of a number of questions Amnesty International and others have around the Bill.


Amnesty International also questions the Government’s justification that the legislation is being introduced to meet obligations as set out by a United Nations Security Council resolution to address foreign fighters.


The same resolution also clearly states that governments must comply with their obligations under international law – including international human rights law – and that failure to do so contributes to radicalisation,” said Amanda Brydon.


By only allowing 48 hours for consultation by experts and others, the Government is not allowing the opportunity for proper scrutiny and the ability to robustly discuss whether the proposals are indeed consistent with our obligations under international law. The Security Council resolution should not be used to justify the haste with which this bill is being rushed through the consultation process.”

http://thedailyblog.co.nz/2014/11/28/amnesty-international-press-release-government-must-allow-further-scrutiny-of-countering-terrorist-fighters-bill/#sthash.vr382Psd.dpuf

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.