PDA

View Full Version : Waihopai "SPY" base



Happy Harry
17-03-2010, 07:02 PM
The politics aside, how can the NZ courts find these guys not guilty of intentional damage to the dome.
They were caught on site, with the sickles and rakes and a bloody great hole cut in the side of the protective bubble. The hole wasn't caused by some kamikaze Magpie!!
It pisses me off that the damage done by these guys, now has to be paid for by the average Joe blow taxpayer
That these 3 believe that this satellite dish causes harm is really beside the point.
I believe that the 2 young guys at the end of my road are eventually going to kill someone with their stupid driving, but that does not give me the right to go and destroy their cars to prevent this happening.
I admire their conviction to their cause but not their trampling of everyone else’s rights to not have to pay for their vandalism.
HH

Trev
17-03-2010, 07:08 PM
Quite agree with you. These people were guilty.
:)

CliveM
17-03-2010, 07:34 PM
Beats me. Now every Greenie idiot will be trying the same defence for property damage.

prefect
17-03-2010, 08:18 PM
Just retry them and retry them until found guilty then deport them.

Cato
17-03-2010, 08:42 PM
This ain't vandalism it's terrorism.

Cato
17-03-2010, 08:44 PM
No, this isn't terrorism, it's high treason.

R2x1
17-03-2010, 08:46 PM
If they're "not" guilty, then they should be "not" hung (a bit) for a day or two to ponder on the error of their ways

Cato
17-03-2010, 08:48 PM
Not this is liberal BS.

If John Key proposes to send troops to Iraq, and I kill him to prevent this from happening and prevent kiwi soldiers from killing terrorists, will I be acquitted?
What if I blow up a plane taking troops to Iraq?

I shouldn't be, I should be hung. Not for murder, but for treason.

plod
17-03-2010, 08:58 PM
I say good on them.

Happy Harry
17-03-2010, 09:40 PM
I say good on them.

Hey Plod
I have no problems with these guys protesting, but have huge problems with them destroying public/crown property.
Why do you say "Good on them"
It does not make any sense for these guys to destroy public/crown property/taxpayers and then just get away with it.
If you then extrapolate agreement wuth their actions, then it is then quite acceptable for anyone who does not agree with the beliefs of these 3, to go and shoot the farmers cows, destroy the gardeners vegies and fruit and burn down the church of the monk/priest.
I can not accept that these peoples beliefs allow then to damage/destroy property without redress.

Cheers
HH

BobM
17-03-2010, 09:44 PM
I say good on them.

WHY.

Sweep
17-03-2010, 09:53 PM
Blame the Jury I say.

plod
17-03-2010, 10:28 PM
WHY.

for once it wasn't the rich upper class getting off with a good lawyer (Did I word that right?)
Hell, I would like too know what goes on in that place, and its sorted my next defense next time I need one. Its almost as good as the provocation defense

BobM
17-03-2010, 11:03 PM
for once it wasn't the rich upper class getting off with a good lawyer (Did I word that right?)

WTH. No.

Sweep
17-03-2010, 11:13 PM
In this case the defence worked for the defendants.

The Prosecution may have not actually proved the case in spite of admissions by the not guilty parties.

Zippity
17-03-2010, 11:44 PM
Don't blame the Jury.

Blame the stinkin' Labour Government that phuked up our legal system............

gary67
18-03-2010, 06:55 AM
for once it wasn't the rich upper class getting off with a good lawyer (Did I word that right?)


Yes you did and I can see where your coming from even though I disagree with the verdict, it is good to see you don't have to be rich to get a good lawyer, hope you got his name for if you ever need one

Roscoe
18-03-2010, 08:17 AM
I thought that ignorance of the law was no excuse, but in this case they pleaded ignorance and were acquitted.

Does that mean we can all plead ignorance and get away with almost anything? Seems like it.:horrified

Gobe1
18-03-2010, 08:18 AM
Bloody hippies

EDIT: they represented themselves didnt they??

paulw
18-03-2010, 08:30 AM
No doubt they were on legal aid as well so the tax payer pays twice. Once for the damage they caused and once for their defense..

prefect
18-03-2010, 08:34 AM
Sorta opens up the NZ Defence force to attacks from nutcases with a idiotic precedent of defence.
Hope the jury are proud of themselves because in a small town like Blenheim everyone knows or can find out who they are and where they live.
My pick the jury was made up of sickly white retired liberals.

Trev
18-03-2010, 08:39 AM
Umm Wellington my dear chap.
:)

prefect
18-03-2010, 08:41 AM
Say no more that explains it 100%

Sweep
18-03-2010, 09:22 AM
My more considered opinion is that the Police got it wrong in laying the wrong charges. The Judge also exacerbated the issue in his summing up.

In this case the defence relied on common law which may take precedence over Criminal law.

The prosecution does have the right of Appeal if they think they would be successful.

SolMiester
18-03-2010, 01:26 PM
The politics aside, how can the NZ courts find these guys not guilty of intentional damage to the dome.
They were caught on site, with the sickles and rakes and a bloody great hole cut in the side of the protective bubble. The hole wasn't caused by some kamikaze Magpie!!
It pisses me off that the damage done by these guys, now has to be paid for by the average Joe blow taxpayer
That these 3 believe that this satellite dish causes harm is really beside the point.
I believe that the 2 young guys at the end of my road are eventually going to kill someone with their stupid driving, but that does not give me the right to go and destroy their cars to prevent this happening.
I admire their conviction to their cause but not their trampling of everyone else’s rights to not have to pay for their vandalism.
HH

Ho, just wait, we will have activist nutters doing damage everywhere now as NZ juries say its okay!

Scouse
18-03-2010, 01:57 PM
Re: Ho, just wait, we will have activist nutters doing damage everywhere now as NZ juries say its okay!

Nope. One jury's opinions and decisions apply only to the facts of that case. A senior judge's decisions trickle on down the line with all taking note - the single jury decsion means diddly-squat to the next jury or case.

Bring on the fruit-cake lunatic fringe and watch more sensible juries crap on them. :cool:

Sweep
18-03-2010, 02:01 PM
The Judge asked the Jury to not worry about creating a precedent in his summation.

martynz
18-03-2010, 06:19 PM
I hadn't realised that there were so many hypocrites on this forum.
How many times have some of you mouthed off about how its time to take the law into your own hands....talk is cheap.

Martynz

Cicero
18-03-2010, 06:35 PM
Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,I'd say.

Paul Camford
18-03-2010, 06:48 PM
Wannabe martyrs without the courage
If they pleaded guilty at least I would have some respect for these idiots

plod
18-03-2010, 07:28 PM
The crown could have easily proved the defenses case useless, by simply proving Waihopai base isn't involved in what the defendants say. The crowns silence kind of proves the defendants a right.
On a side note, I don't condone what these three did, I just find it highly amusing their can admit to something and the crown aren't bright enough to get a conviction

mikebartnz
20-03-2010, 02:20 AM
WHY.
Don't ask him awkward questions.

prefect
20-03-2010, 09:50 AM
According to the Herald they scan emails and telecons for key words. Surely if you were a terrorist these days you would be on to it and use an unbreakable code in your communications. Rendering these listening posts redundant. I dont buy into the concept that any code can be broken these days thats why the govt is not keen on encrypted emails they want a law ordering you to give them a code if they ask. So some codes must be unbreakable. The allies didnt really break the enigma code they just got the codes. . Bearing in mind someones terrorists is someones elses freedom fighter. For instance in WW2 the french resistance would have been called terrorists by the germans, hungarians and vichy but freedom fighters by the allies.

ubergeek85
20-03-2010, 10:37 AM
Very few codes are 'unbreakable', they can all be brute-forced. Sure it might take several million years, but it doesn't matter. The only unbreakable code that springs to mind is the One-time pad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad).


Also worth note is the Feige-Fiat-Shamir Identification Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feige-Fiat-Shamir_Identification_Scheme).

R2x1
20-03-2010, 10:42 AM
There are more unbreakable codes beside that; just try extracting any intelligence from Government pronouncements.

prefect
20-03-2010, 10:51 AM
Very few codes are 'unbreakable', they can all be brute-forced. Sure it might take several million years, but it doesn't matter. The only unbreakable code that springs to mind is the One-time pad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-time_pad).


Also worth note is the Feige-Fiat-Shamir Identification Scheme (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feige-Fiat-Shamir_Identification_Scheme).

Thats quite interesting, never heard of it before.
Wouldnt the ability of a pc computer to generate lots of random numbers make the code unbreakable before the sun runs out of hydrogen and dies.

ubergeek85
20-03-2010, 05:58 PM
Wouldnt the ability of a pc computer to generate lots of random numbers make the code unbreakable before the sun runs out of hydrogen and dies.

Oh yes, but there are groups out there with the facilities to break those codes much, much faster, like distributed.net and, you know, the NSA.

It's very, very easy to just throw more bits at an encryption alg, and it will become more secure, but the idea is to get the best possible security with the least amount of bits. For example, distributed.net is currently taking on RC5, which has a 72-bit key length. It's been processing RC5 for 2,000+ days, and has only gone through 0.7% of the key space. Sure, that's alot of time to go through every possible key, but due to the design of RC5, it's the only real way to break it. RC4, on the other hand, has been broken for a while, yet it can have between 40 and 256 bits. Hell, AES (the current gold standard) has only 128 bits IIRC.

More bits (or rounds) don't mean more security.

prefect
20-03-2010, 09:05 PM
Absolutely fascinating geekster