Against impunity

So, can the NZ SAS soldiers apparently responsible for killing two civilians in a botched raid in Kabul on Friday be prosecuted? Not by the Afghans, they can't. The SAS in Afghanistan are working as part of the "International Security Assistance Force", and their presence there is covered by a one-sided Military Technical Agreement [DOC] imposed on the provisional government of Afghanistan by their occupiers. This states that all ISAF personnel will be immune from arrest and detention and will

under all circumstances and at all times be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of their respective national elements in respect of any criminal or disciplinary offences which may be committed by them on the territory of Afghanistan.

Or, in English, "Afghan law does not apply to them". They'll also be immune to any claims for damages to property caused by their actions. So, they can kick in your door, shoot your employees, smash up your factory, and there is nothing anyone in Afghanistan can legally do about it (which is why they join the Taliban - when the law fails, people seek extra-legal solutions).

However, those soldiers are subject to New Zealand law. And we have an obligation to ensure they follow it. They've killed people in circumstances which suggest a prima facie case for manslaughter on behalf of the people pulling the triggers and the people planning the operation. That case must be investigated, and if evidentially supportable, must be prosecuted. We cannot allow New Zealand soldiers to just kill civilians and then walk away as if nothing has happened. If we do, we are not just looking the other way on a crime, we're also inviting our army to start behaving like Americans. And that is something we cannot allow to happen.

What the SAS is doing in Afghanistan

Killing civilians, apparently:

New Zealand Special Air Force soldiers led a botched raid on a Kabul factory on Friday that left two Afghan workers dead and two with life threatening injuries, the Times newspaper reports.

The soldiers are identified in the report as the commander "Sean" and his deputy "James".

The raid has outraged the Afghan Government because it was done without their approval.

This incident needs to be thoroughly investigated, and if there is any suggestion of negligence, the soldiers responsible must be held to account. While they're there, our soldiers owe a duty of care to the people of Afghanistan; they cannot be allowed to murder them by incompetence and then just walk away as if nothing had happened.

But what really bites about this is that we have to hear about it from the foreign media, rather than our own. And it makes the government's policy of secrecy around the deployment seem more than a little self-interested, a blatant attempt to limit public debate and insulate themselves from the consequences of their decision, rather than accepting responsibility for their actions.

Unsuppressed: Urewera 18 to be denied jury trial

Two weeks ago, I vented my spleen about a suppression order in a major upcoming criminal case of significant public interest. The suppression order has now been varied, so I am allowed to report on the outcome of the judgement: that the accused in the Urewera "terrorism" case will be denied a jury trial, and tried before a judge alone.

Yes, I'm serious. The defendants in a hugely controversial and political case will be tried by a judge, rather than a jury. No matter what you think of the case, this should be deeply troubling. Juries aren't just a fundamental protection for the accused, the ultimate check on abuses of state power - they are also the primary signifier of a fair trial in this country. Yes, judges say that a judge alone trial is as fair as a jury trial (but they would, wouldn't they). The problem is that the public just doesn't believe that. Which means that if the trial continues in its current mode, the verdict simply will not be accepted. Any conviction can be blamed on the unfair process rather than the evidence. And even if you think the accused are guilty, that's not a Good Thing.

The blunt fact is that without a jury, there can be no public confidence in the outcome of a trial such as this. Only with the bullshit detector of 12 random people scrutinising the case can the rest of us believe that justice was done. But I guess a fair process we can have confidence in is just too risky for the police.

That pay rise

So, MPs have been given a pay-rise for xmas - $4,000, nice money if you can get it. But while I want our elected representatives to be well-paid, there are two things about this which stink.

Firstly, its backdated. There's a a huge level of hypocrisy here, as the government has decreed that no public service pay rise shall be backdated. So, its one rule for politicians, and another for the people who work for them. Colour me unsurprised.

Secondly, $2,000 of that increase is "compensation" for MPs reduced usage of their international travel perk, a pure rort they should never have been given in the first place. So, they steal from us, then get a pay rise to "compensate" them for stopping. Of course, they can point the finger at the remuneration commission, who is obliged to set their salaries on a "total compensation" basis, but who made them do that? MP's did, of course, as a way of grabbing more money for the removal of perks some years ago. And then they wonder why the public regards them as grasping, greedy little fucks. They have no-one but themselves to blame.

(This is unfair to newer MPs, who are not responsible for the greedy, self-interested decisions of the past. But if they want to avoid being tarred with the same brush as Pansy Wong and Lockwood Smith, they could always speak out about it. And if they don't, then we can regard them as complicit).

Funding his mates

Back in the Budget in May, the government handed out $4.8 million to the Pacific Economic Development Agency to "boost enterprise" in Auckland's Pacific community. Questions were raised at the time over why an unknown company with no track record in the area was being given so much money without any tender process - especially when it emerged that it was run by a National Party supporter with close ties to an expected National candidate. And now we know why: because Bill English said so:

A trail of documents show a lack of communication, an absence of Cabinet papers and the lone hand of Finance Minister Bill English in approving $4.8 million in public money for an agency that was ultimately left out in the cold.

[...]

The trail of emails suggest Mr English approved the money without telling the Ministry of Pacific Island Affairs or the Treasury.

His office told the Treasury on March 17 that the minister had approved the appropriation so officials could include it in the Budget in May.

The following morning, a Treasury official emailed the ministry: "We don't know a great deal more about this initiative. However, ministers have made the decision to fund this - presume someone in [Pacific Island Affairs] must know about it?"

A ministry official replied: "The information we have over here on this is very sketchy. Are you able to send us or point us in the direction of the Cabinet papers so we can proceed? [Ministry chief executive Colin Tukuitonga] said that he was involved in discussions back in Nov 09 but had heard nothing since."

So, the Ministry, from whom any Budget bid should have originated, knew nothing. Treasury knew nothing. It was all Bill English, who was pretty transparently rewarding his mates (and trying to boost National's 2011 electoral chances) with public money.

It doesn't matter which side of the political spectrum you're on: this is just wrong. It is corrupt. And preventing this sort of looting of the state is precisely why we have tender requirements and transparency. English abused his power as Finance Minister to sidestep all of those safeguards. And he should be held accountable for it.

Proroguing criticism

New South Wales Premier Kristina Keneally has a problem. Her government is involved in a dubious and controversial plan to privatise the state's electricity assets. But opposition legislators, who control the state's upper house, are not impressed with the idea of selling key state assets for half of what they are worth (and then throwing in A$2.3 billion of "inducements" into the bargain). So they've launched a select committee inquiry into the deal, which could result in criticism of the government.

Keneally has responded by proroguing Parliament, effectively killing off the inquiry by suspending all select committee business until the state elections next year.

As with the proroguings in Canada in 2008 and the Cook Islands and Papua New Guinea this year, this is an affront to democracy. Unlike the previous cases, there's no real question of Keneally's democratic mandate to rule - she still has a majority where it counts, in the lower house. But in some ways, that makes it worse: New South Wales democracy is being overturned, not to ensure the survival of a government, but simply to prevent ordinary, everyday criticism. Which makes you wonder what she would do if her majority was under threat...

This is a fundamental flaw in the Westminster system, but we know how to solve it. In the seventeenth century, the English Parliament responded to a monarch who suspended and dissolved them for his political convenience by deciding for themselves when they would meet, effectively repealing the power of prorogation (and, in their case, of dissolution - not a democratic move). The New Zealand Parliament has effectively done the same, setting its sitting calendar by motion. While the power to prorogue technically remains, our Parliament is now in practice an independent entity, rather than one which exists and meets at the whim of the monarch or the Prime Minister. New South Wales (and Canada, the Cook Islands and PNG) should follow our example.

In force

The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, an international treaty aimed at outlawing disappearance, entered into force today. Sadly, it has done so without the support of New Zealand. Just another example of how we've gone from being a leader on human rights, to a craven follower of the United States, afraid to stand up and speak out against abuses because it would cast our "very very very good friends" in a bad light.

More Catholic misogyny

Are you a woman facing a dangerous pregnancy which could result in your death? According to the Catholic Church, you should just die:

The head of the Catholic church in Phoenix has stripped Arizona's largest hospital of its Catholic affiliation after he ruled that a decision to save the life of a mother by terminating her 11-week pregnancy was morally wrong.

Bishop Thomas Olmsted announced yesterday that St Joseph's hospital can no longer be considered to be Catholic. The ruling breaks a relationship that stretches back to the hospital's founding by Catholic nuns 115 years ago.

He has also excommunicated the member of the hospital's ethics committee that permitted the abortion to go ahead.

Save a woman's life, get excommunicated. It's a parody of morality, utterly deranged. But then, that's what you get when you make an imaginary heaven more important than earth.

Climate change: Look who's reviewing our ETS

When the then-Labour government passed the Emissions Trading Scheme back in 2008, it included a requirement for five-yearly reviews to investigate allocation and recommend any changes. The first of those reviews is due by the end of next year, and the government has just appointed the review panel. So who have they appointed? A bunch of farmers and forestry representatives. So much for a review we can have confidence in.

Browsing the terms of reference [PDF], a key question is:

whether the NZ ETS should continue to scale up to a full obligation and whether new sectors should incur surrender obligations on current legislated timetables after 2012, taking into account the domestic actions of key competitors, or what conditions should be met before proceeding with further sectors entering into the ETS

So the government wants their strapped-chicken review to "independently" recommend the retention of the current 50% pollution subsidy and the continued exclusion of our biggest source of pollution, agriculture. The latter amounts to an effective subsidy of $870 million a year at present (using National's estimated carbon price of NZ$25 / ton), and twice that from 2013 (using their estimated post-2012 price of NZ$50 per ton). And that is not something New Zealand, or the environment, can afford.

Busted

Since the exposure of ACT leader Rodney Hide's taxpayer-subsidised holiday last year, MPs have been on notice that their use of their unjustifiable (and now abolished) travel perk was going to come under close public scrutiny. So the only thing surprising about Chris Carter's public exposure and shaming for having booked himself a $14,000 xmas holiday on the taxpayer is that he is surprised. He booked himself a last hurrah using a rort the public hates and which even his fellow MPs have been forced to admit is unjustifiable. What did he think would happen?

Naturally, of course, he's blaming the media, and hinting that it is all because he's gay. But the only person at fault here is Carter, and his arrogance and sense of entitlement. He thought he could screw the taxpayer again and get away with it. And he's just been reminded (again) that we are just not going to put up with that anymore, regardless of who you are, and regardless of your sexuality.

And that said, he does raise an interesting point: other MPs may also have taken the opportunity to book themselves a last hurrah on the taxpayer. We deserve to know who these thieves are, so they can be named and shamed. They can either tell us now, or we can learn in three months' time when the quarterly expenses are published. But either way, we are going to find out, and they are going to pay the electoral price.

Kiwileaks and "national security"

Ever since Wikileaks leaked the US diplomatic cables, Americans have been demanding that they stop, on the basis of "national security". Now, over in Dim Post's comments, that disease has come to New Zealand:

These documents are classified for a reason. Sure they might be widely available now, but stop helping to spread them further. I don’t care if they’re compromising do individuals, they’re also compromising to national security.

Apart from the obvious response of calling bullshit, we should also ask "whose?" Whose "national security" should we censor ourselves to protect?

New Zealand's? These aren't our government's secrets. And while they have embarrassed the powerful and exposed their double-dealing and hypocrisy, that isn't "national security". Which leaves America's. But to point out the obvious, I'm not an American. I find the claim that democratic citizens own loyalty to their governments dubious enough as is (it gets the relationship between citizen and state precisely backwards); the idea that I somehow owe loyalty to someone else's government is even more absurd. Unless people are going to die directly as a result, I have no reason to keep America's secrets (and then, I'm caring about the risk to people's lives, not the risk to some other state's "national security").

Climate change: Locking in high emissions

In 2008, as part of its emissions trading scheme, the then-Labour government imposed a ten-year moratorium on new thermal electricity generation. One of National's first acts on gaining power was to repeal it. And today we're seeing the consequences of that repeal, with Todd Energy's announcement of a new 100 MW gas-fuelled power plant in Taranaki. Unlike Contact Energy's 200MW plant under construction at Stratford, the plant is not aimed at peaking, but at baseload generation - meaning it will run 24/7, spewing out carbon dioxide and damaging the climate. And it will do so for the next 25 - 30 years, meaning those emissions will be locked in as part of our emissions profile until 2040.

This is exactly what the thermal ban was supposed to prevent. But National's repeal has enabled this polluting behaviour, and made it that much harder to meet their target of 90% renewable generation by 2025. But then, with no policy to achieve it, Nationals' target was just hot air - and this proves it.

A good idea

The Law Commission has released its report into Mental Impairment Decision-Making and the Insanity Defence [PDF], and recommended a significant change to the way people found mentally unfit to standing trial or not guilty by reason of insanity are treated. Currently, a judge decides whether these people need to be indefinitely committed. But subsequent decisions on their temporary or permanent release are made not by medical professionals, but by the Minister of Health. There is obvious potential for such decisions to be politicised (especially with the "hang 'em high" brigade waging public campaigns against the release of any prisoner, ever), which is not good for justice. So the Law Commission has recommended the decision be taken away from the Minister and put in the hands of a specialist tribunal, who can make the decision based on the needs of the patient and of justice, rather than any personal need for votes.

Its a good idea, and I hope the government enacts it. But with justice policy ATM seemingly being made by the Sensible Sentencing Trust, I don't think its likely.

Denied

Both Helen Clark and Phil Goff have denied the US embassy's claim that they traded blood for butter over Iraq, calling it "ridiculous" and "preposterous". Which is what you'd expect them to say. But if they want to prove it, then they have an obvious avenue to do so: request and release all the advice they received on the issue, unredacted, so we can see that they are telling the truth. Anything less, and we can only conclude that they have something to hide.

(This is the problem with secrecy: by its nature, it invites suspicion. Only total transparency allows us to see that our politicians are in fact doing what they have said they will do, rather than betraying us behind our backs).

Meanwhile, if Clark and Goff are telling the truth, and the dairy trade had nothing to do with their decision, we also have to ask why "senior MoD officials" thought that it did. Are they that far out of the loop, or is the culture within the MoD really that toxic?

More privatisation

More controversial policy dumped just before xmas so it can be buried in the holiday "silly season": the government is planning to privatise ACC by opening the workforce market to competition from foreign insurance companies. A 2008 report from PricewaterhouseCoopers (since sanitised from ACC's website, but you can read it here) found that there would be absolutely no benefit to New Zealanders from this move. But Australian insurers (including John Key's old firm, Merrill Lynch) will benefit by an estimated $200 million. That's $200 million in pure wealth transfer, in the form of higher premiums, denied claims and worse service, that we will pay for the benefit of John Key's rich mates. And people wonder why I regard privatisations as inherently corrupt...

Last time National did this, in the 90's, Labour reversed it the moment they got into government. I expect them to do the same this time. The evidence shows that ACC is best left to the state, rather than the private insurance industry. And if Aussie insurers think differently, they can expect to lose their money.

Peter Jackson: Liar

Back in October, LOTR producer Peter Jackson led a public campaign against the local actors union, claiming that an international boycott of The Hobbit in support of better employment conditions would force the film overseas. It turns out he was lying to us. An email he sent to the Minister of Economic Development, released under the OIA, shows what he really thought:

Sir Peter Jackson told the Government he did not believe an international actors' boycott would force The Hobbit overseas, emails show.

The message, sent to the office of Economic Development Minister Gerry Brownlee on October 18, is in stark contrast to comments the film-maker made earlier in the month.

[...]

"There is no connection between the blacklist (and it's eventual retraction) and the choice of production base for The Hobbit," he wrote.

"What Warners requires for The Hobbit is the certainty of a stable employment environment and the ability to conduct its business in such as way that it feels its $500 million investment is as secure as possible."

The October 18 email also suggests Sir Peter thought the boycott had been lifted, even though he said in television interviews three days later he was unsure if it had been officially ditched.

Jackson continued to lie about the "threat" posed by the boycott, even though he did not believe there was one, in order to shake down the government for millions in additional subsidies for his project. And the government continued to repeat his lie - despite being told by Jackson that he did not think it was an issue - in order to "justify" its corrupt and repressive Hobbit Enabling Act, which reduced actors to peonage. The problem is that neither had thought about the Official Information Act, which makes all of their correspondence on the issue public. The question for us is now that their lies have been exposed, what are we going to do about it?

Democracy fails in Tonga

Tongan MPs have finally met to elect a Prime Minister, and elected Siale'ataonga Tu'ivakano by 14 votes to 12. This is a bad outcome. In order to be regarded as legitimate, Tonga's Prime Minister needed the support of a majority of people's representatives. Instead, he has the support of only a third (and almost all from the outer islands, so the 70% of Tongans who live on the main island of Tongatapu have no say in their own government). So why is he Prime Minister? Because he has the support of the nine noble representatives, who voted for one of their own rather than a "dirt eater". Those nine nobles, representing a mere 33 corrupt inbreds, get to overturn the wishes of the Tongan people and appoint one of their own as Prime Minister.

The result: Tonga's democracy is shown from its outset to be a sham, which will not result in the change people desire. And the consequences of that could be very unpleasant indeed.

New Fisk

The tragedy of Algeria's 'disappeared'

Cablegate: Protected sources

This morning we learned that "Senior MOD officials" were secretly briefing the US Embassy about what was happening in our Cabinet. We know it was secretly, rather than at the behest of the New Zealand government, because the relevant cable marked them "strictly protect" - meaning the Americans didn't want anyone else (and especially anyone from New Zealand) to know about it. Over on Dim Post, Danyl asks an interesting question:

Can someone explain to me the difference between a senior defence official named as a protected source by a foreign embassy who briefs them on confidential cabinet decisions, and a spy?

Like him, I don't really see one. The information may be political rather than defence-related, but at its root, these people are working for a foreign government, rather than us. And that means they really shouldn't be working in our public service.

Meanwhile, Bryce Edwards has posted the New Zealand Herald's complete archive of 243 cables [PDF] (if you want to read them individually, Danyl has a split-up version here). So here's a list of everyone marked in it as a protected source, someone the Americans don't want us to know is briefing them:

• Gabrielle Rush, "an adviser in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade's legal division" (05WELLINGTON160);
• Bill Peoples, "crime policy and projects officer for the New Zealand Police" (05WELLINGTON160);
• "MFAT officials" (05WELLINGTON294);
• Robert Stevens, "chief executive of Education New Zealand" (05WELLINGTON569);
• Peter Keenan, "National Party strategist" (05WELLINGTON642);
• Matthew Palmer, "son of former Labour PM Sir Geoffrey Palmer" (05WELLINGTON650);
• Annelies McClure, "manager of the Overseas Investment Office" (05WELLINGTON891)

Not all of these people are public servants. Those who aren't owe the government no loyalty, though its still interesting to know that they are US sources. As for the public servants, the briefings may have been authorised - though if they were its a bit odd that the Americans treated them as some sort of deep dark secret. But that ultimately is a matter between them and their employers.

National: Raising our emissions through privatisation

Six years ago, the government opened a 155MW backup power station at Whirinaki. Running on diesel, the station was intended to be used as dry-year backup, to prevent any repeat of the previous year's drought-induced power shortages. Now, National is planning to sell it.

There are several aspects to this. Firstly, of course, the government is proposing to sell a significant public asset, with no mandate from the electorate, and despite having promised that they would not privatise anything "in their first term". They're breaking that promise. Which is why Gerry Brownlee dumped the news right before xmas, after the House had risen - to ensure it was buried in the holiday "silly season".

(And in case anyone suggests it, no, this is not a "surplus" asset. Gerry Brownlee's "reforms" - basically rearranging ownership among some SOEs - has not reduced our vulnerability to dry-year shortages. That's a question of the climate, not of regulatory structures or who owns what. So Brownlee isn't just selling a public asset - he's selling a vital one, the one which protects Auckland from going dark if we have a dry summer down south followed by a cold winter. Which BTW is a pattern expected to increase as climate change takes hold).

Secondly, there's the question of what this will do to our greenhouse gas emissions. Whirinaki is a dirty, inefficient generator, but in its dry-year backup role, it doesn't run that often, so its not so much of a problem. And its so expensive to run that a private buyer would not be able to use it as baseload generation in its current configuration. From their press release, the government thinks it is likely that the powerplant will be taken offshore, but there's another option: it could be converted to run on gas. This would significantly reduce running costs, and put it in the same league as any other gas-fired plant. Which would mean that it could be used as baseload. While the ETS has raised the price of using gas for electricity generation, it hasn't yet made it uneconomic (unlike coal) - so it won't deter this. The result will be that by privatising Whirinaki, National may be giving us another dirty baseload gas-fired power plant, which would both raise our emissions and crowd out investments in cleaner generation such as wind.

This is the wrong choice, both for our energy system and the environment. And if National gets its way, we'll all regret it later.

[Hat-tip: The Standard]

Parliamentary secrecy in Tonga

Last month Tonga held (mostly) democratic elections, which saw its people elect a majority of Parliamentary seats for the first time in their history. Today sees the final act of that process, with the newly elected Parliament meeting to choose a Prime Minister. Two names have been put forward: democracy campaigner 'Akilisi Pohiva and former Speaker of the Legislative Assembly Siale'ataonga Tu'ivakano. The 17 people's and 9 noble's representatives will debate the nomination, and then choose between the candidates... by secret ballot.

The use of a secret ballot in this decision is an appalling abuse of democracy. Voters need the secret ballot to protect them from intimidation and to ensure they are free to choose whoever they prefer. But elected legislators aren't voters, but representatives. Every vote cast by them in Parliament is by definition a public act, and one for which they should be able to be held accountable. A secret ballot prevents that. It allows MPs to lie to their voters about what they did in office, to promise one thing, and do another. And that makes a mockery of democracy.

Blood for butter

Back in World War I the New Zealand government made a cynical decision to sacrifice kiwi lives on the altar of empire for the sake of trade - a decision referred to by critics as "blood for butter". Now it seems Helen Clark (of all people) made exactly the same cynical decision over Iraq - literally:

One of nearly 1500 secret US cables obtained from WikiLeaks details Cabinet decisions in which Helen Clark's government did an about turn on sending troops to Iraq because of fears Fonterra would miss out on lucrative Oil for Food contracts.

[...]

"Senior MOD officials (strictly protect) tell us it was not until Finance Minister Michael Cullen pointed out in a subsequent Cabinet meeting that New Zealand's absence from Iraq might cost NZ dairy conglomerate Fonterra the lucrative dairy supply contract it enjoyed under the United Nations Oil for Food program, that the prime minister found a face-saving compromise and sent combat engineers in a non-combat role to Basra, where they were embedded with British forces.

Fortunately Clark's decision worked out rather better than Massey's. But the mere idea that we would risk lives for the profit of a few farmers is utterly abhorrent, and Labour should be deeply ashamed of itself for doing so.

Meanwhile, the fact that senior MOD officials were secretly briefing the Americans on the inner workings of our Cabinet is deeply disturbing. And when you combine it with all the other secret briefings mentioned in the cables, you have to ask: is there anyone in our public service who actually works for us, as opposed to a foreign power?

New Fisk

Stay out of trouble by not speaking to Western spies

Repealing bigotry

The US Senate has voted to end the US's homophobic "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which has seen thousands of men and women kicked out of the military solely because of their sexual orientation. Good. The policy had been found to be unconstitutional, and while the bigots (backed by President Obama) were fighting a desperate rearguard to retain it, it was doomed. Legislative repeal is quicker, and strips them of any claim to be the victims of "judicial activism" (AKA "judges enforcing the constitution").

But while the Senate has done a good job in removing this minor form of bigotry, a greater one remains, in that most of America still prohibits same-sex marriage, or even civil unions. Isn't it time the US Congress acted to remove that bigotry too? And isn't it time New Zealand removed our ban on same-sex marriage as well?

Cablegate: New Zealand edition

Last weekend, the Sunday Star-Times began releasing cablegate cables relating to New Zealand. This weekend, the Sunday Herald is in on the act. Today's revelations:

• Former Immigration Service chief executive Mary Anne Thompson (yes, she of the fraudulent CV) was a US spy, described as "an invaluable behind-the-scenes Embassy contact". Looks like we're well rid of her then.
• John Key, who promised during the 2008 election that he would meet with the Dalai Lama, gave secret assurances to the Chinese that he would not do so - and then got Murray McCully to lie to Parliament to deny the deal.
• The US is extremely touchy about the anti-nuclear legislation, and threw a hissy-fit when Labour campaigned to protect it in 2005.
• The US NSA has a permanent liaison within the GCSB.
• The US asked the SIS in 2003 whether they were monitoring Maori groups "in the wake of press reports that some Maori were embracing radical Islam". The SIS said no, "as they thought the police were doing an adequate monitoring job".
• The US tried to dump the innocent Uighurs in Guantanamo on us. Mary Anne Thompson pops up again here, putting the US case tot he government
• Jenny Shipley "offered to educate National MPs on how to examine themselves for sexually transmitted diseases". It is unclear whether this was before or after National's coalition agreement with NZ First.

But the big revelation is the news from the Sunday Star-Times that MFAT does not actually think a free-trade deal with the United States is worth it:

New Zealand's chief trade negotiator Mark Sinclair privately told a visiting US State Department official that New Zealand had little to gain from a free-trade agreement. This view – recorded in a confidential US embassy cable released by WikiLeaks – differs from the one the public has been given.

When the US joined the Trans-Pacific Partnership talks in November last year, Prime Minister John Key said it could be worth "billions and billions" to New Zealand, and that a deal would "position New Zealand brilliantly for growth".

But in a meeting in February, Sinclair told US Deputy Assistant Frankie Reed "there is a public perception that getting into the US will be an `El Dorado' for New Zealand's commercial sector. However, the reality is different".

He said New Zealand would need to "manage" public expectations about the benefits of a US free-trade agreement.

(Link added) This isn't surprising. An Australian analysis of their FTA with the US has shown that it actually cost them money. And with the US making similar demands around intellectual property, GM and pharmaceutical policy from us, an agreement with them will likely have the same result here. The question then is why politicians keep pursuing such deals.

Cablegate: India a torture state

Today's big Wikileaks story: India is engaged in systematic torture in Kashmir. A cable - 05NEWDELHI2606 - reports on a conversation between a US diplomat and a representative of the International Committee for the Red Cross (ICRC), which monitors prisoners. The horrifying statistics:

ICRC staff made 177 visits to detention centers in [Jammu and Kashmir] and elsewhere (primarily the Northeast) between 2002-2004, meeting with 1491 detainees, 1296 of which were private interviews. XXXXXXXXXXXX considered this group a representative sample of detainees in Kashmir, but stressed that they had not been allowed access to all detainees. In 852 cases, detainees reported what ICRC refers to as "IT" (ill-treatment): 171 persons were beaten, the remaining 681 subjected to one or more of six forms of torture: electricity (498 cases), suspension from ceiling (381), "roller" (a round metal object put on the thighs of sitting person, which prison personnel then sit on, crushing muscles -- 294); stretching (legs split 180 degrees -- 181), water (various forms -- 234), or sexual (302). Numbers add up to more than 681, as many detainees were subjected to more than one form of IT. ICRC stressed that all the branches of the security forces used these forms of IT and torture.

And we're negotiating a free trade deal with them. Clearly, our government doesn't regard the systematic use of torture as any sort of barrier to good diplomatic relations or free trade. Makes you proud to be a kiwi, doesn't it?

A police state

A schoolkid sees something in his society he doesn't like. So he gets together with some friends over Facebook and organises a protest against it outside the office of his local representative. When they hear about the plan, the police turn up at his school, drag him out of class, and threaten him with arrest.

It sounds like the sort of thing which happens in China. In fact, it happened in the UK, over a protest against the closure of a local youth centre. The British police, it seems, regard even protests organised by children as a seditious rebellion, which must be stopped lest it offend the sensibilities of those in power.

Its just the latest example (and by no means the worst) of how the UK has turned into a police state. Writing in the Independent, Johann Hari reports that people are now telling him they are too frightened to protest, for fear of police violence. As he notes, this suits those in power very well. But its very bad for the rest of us:

There is a cost to this chilling of protest. Every British citizen is the beneficiary of a long line of protesters stretching back through the centuries. Every woman reading this can vote and open her own bank account and choose her own husband and have a career because protesters demanded it. Every worker gets at least £5.93 an hour, and paid holidays, and paid sick leave, because protesters demanded it. Every pensioner gets enough to survive because protesters demand it. What [would] your life would be like if all those protesters through all those years had been frightened into inactivity? If you block the right to protest, you block the path to progress. You are left instead at the whim of an elite, whose priority is tax cuts for themselves, paid for with spending cuts for the poor.

This is not something UKanians should tolerate. The problem of course is that doing so requires protest - the very thing being stomped upon. I am hoping they find the courage to do so. Otherwise the UK will grow ever more authoritarian and totalitarian, and grassroots democracy will be crushed under police boots.

How the US treats leakers

Wikileaks founder Julian Assange was finally granted bail in the UK last night, but also seems certain to be extradited to Sweden to face rape charges. Meanwhile, the US are reportedly planning to extradite him from there on conspiracy charges, alleging that he solicited the leaked cables, making him a party to their leaking (a theory which would also criminalise most investigative journalism). So how would he be treated if extradited? The treatment of the alleged leaker, Bradley Manning, provides a clue:

From the beginning of his detention, Manning has been held in intensive solitary confinement. For 23 out of 24 hours every day -- for seven straight months and counting -- he sits completely alone in his cell. Even inside his cell, his activities are heavily restricted; he's barred even from exercising and is under constant surveillance to enforce those restrictions.

Its reasonable to assume that the punitive United States "justice" system would apply the same conditions to Assange if extradited, if not in remand (and remember, Manning is a remand prisoner who has not yet faced trial, let alone been convicted), then certainly if he is convicted. And this is a problem for the US - because the European Court of Human Rights has already halted extraditions on the grounds that this sort of "supermax" confinement is torture. The reason? Prolonged solitary confinement drives you mad, meaning it qualifies as "severe [mental] pain or suffering" under the Convention Against Torture.

No civilised country extradites people to torture. Which means even if Assange is sent to Sweden to face justice there, he shouldn't go any further. At least, not legally. Its worth remembering that one of the first renditions publicised was from Sweden. And that's the real risk Assange is facing: not lawful extradition, but Sweden's "informal" obedience to the US.

Disappointing

Back in 2009, when Labour was (rightly) attacking Bill English over his housing rort, it was revealed that many other MPs were also abusing their expenses, claiming an accommodation allowance while renting out homes they owned in Wellington (a trick which allowed them to claim more - full rent rather than just the interest on the mortgage). Among them was Labour leader Phil Goff. To sterilise the issue, Goff promised to sell the apartment.

Unfortunately, he didn't. 18 months later, he's still renting it out, while pocketing $28,000 a year to live in rented accommodation. As Goff notes, its "within the rules". But given that he is one of the people who gets to write those rules, that doesn't mean much. Its just not acceptable to the public for MPs to be maximising their expenses, especially when we're being told to tighten our belts. And the fact that he had promised to correct the situation makes things worse. As a result, Goff doesn't just look like a rorter, but a liar as well.

This is disappointing to say the least, and it shows a serious lack of judgement on Goff's part. Did he really think he wouldn't get caught, that people wouldn't check to see whether he kept his word? Or are the bad habits of the 80's, when Goff hung around with Roger Douglas and lied repeatedly to the public about his government's policies, too hard to break?