Conscription already a reality in the US

The American war machine is so desperate for numbers it has resorted to a form of backdoor conscription.

A US solider has been jailed on criminal charges in Georgia for writing and recording a rap song that blasts the army and describes going on a shooting spree. Marc A Hall used music to vent his anger after being told he was not allowed to leave the army after four years this February as he had planned, and he would be forced to remain in the ranks for a year-long tour of Iraq starting in December 2009.

The 'stop-loss' policy is the involuntary extension of a service member's active duty retaining them beyond their initial end of term of service. The policy originally dates from Vietnam, but was also used during the first Gulf War and the so called War on Terror. More than 185,000 U.S. troops have been forced to extend their time in the military since September 11. While there is a clause in recruitment contracts allowing involuntary extension to end of term service dates this clause has been subject to some legal challenge, interestingly on the basis that Congress never formerly declared war in the case of Gulf War II (Iraq). 'Involuntary' means it is a form of conscription in all but name.

One can see how soliders who ask to leave could be treated. "No, we will keep you here for another 12 months under stop-loss - if we can't think of a suitably 'brave' mission, I think the bomb disposal squad requires some more recruits" (read cannon fodder)

In 2007 Secretary of Defence Robert Gates ordered military bosses to minimise their use of mandatory tour extensions, and the military responded by increasing its use of stop-loss by 43%.

The Canadian Press reports:
Hall posted the song, called "Stop Loss," on his Web site. Klimaski said he also played it for many soldiers in his unit, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Infantry Regiment of the 3rd Infantry Division. On the recording, Hall denounces the Army for the policy used to keep thousands of soldiers in the ranks beyond their scheduled dates to leave the military. He also raps about opening fire with his military-issue M-4 rifle.

"I got a (expletive) magazine with 30 rounds, on a three-round burst, ready to fire down," Hall raps on the recording. "Still against the wall, I grab my M-4, spray and watch all the bodies hit the floor. I bet you never stop-loss nobody no more, in your next lifetime of course. No remorse."

"They're saying it's a threat. We're saying it's a fantasy," said Jim Klimaski, a Washington civilian attorney who has talked to Hall about the case. "He's mad, but he's not stupid. He's not violent."

I can't help but recall the episode of Blackadder the Forth, set in the Western Front in 1917, where everyone was preparing to go 'over the top'. Blackadder recalled that the traditional way to get out of the fighting was to pretend to be mad, by putting underpants on your head, sticking two pencils up your nose and saying 'wibble'.

As Blackadder said as his final words "Who would notice a madman around here?". Quite.

Update: You can hear Marc Hall's rap here. Predictably the 'shooting spree' as described by the media is only one or two lines of the song.

Turn the Beehive into a Prison - Collins

The Beehive will be converted into the Wellington Central Prison, Corrections Minister Judith Collins announced today. Ministers of the Crown will move their offices into shipping containers on the lawn outside Parliament.

"The proposal will result in significant cost savings for the taxpayer, and members of John Key's Government will be housed in offices fitting their station" said Judith Collins.

Ms Collins noted the Beehive already possessed useful security features.
"Due to the circular design, anyone attempting to escape via the lift will not be certain as to what direction they are facing. Security cameras are already in place throughout the building."

"As all entrances of the Beehive are already equipped with metal detectors and security scanners, little additional expenditure will be required in order to turn the Beehive into a correctional facility."

"As New Zealanders expect of a National Government, we are thinking about lowering costs, and not much else."

Ms Collins was also enthusiastic about the idea of using shipping crates for ministerial offices. "I will support anything so long as it has a heat pump"

"The lack of windows is a great advantage, particularly when eggs are an occupational hazard."

The current parliamentary cafe, Bellamy's, will need to be significantly upgraded in order to serve prison food to the required standard.

Prime Minister John Key was shocked at the high cost of ministerial offices. "That is an outrageous sum of money, that is more than the average cost of the average New Zealand home. I can't see that the public are going to support a situation where politicians are going to be put in an office that cost more than their house," Mr Key said.

When asked whether the crates would allow the Prime Minister to remove ministers by truck in the middle of the night, Mr Key declined to comment.

Rethinking Crime and Punishment director Kim Workman questioned whether it was humane to inflict a building of questionable 1970s taste on prisoners. "I guess one advantage of having ministers housed in the crates is that the entire cabinet can be shipped off to the Hague if that becomes necessary."
---
All the quotes above are made up for the purpose of taking the piss. With the minister supporting downright silly ideas, serious comment is more than it deserves. We only need more prison space because politicians from both the major parties have legislated for longer and longer sentences. So it seems entirely appropriate a prison is build in their own backyard.

Bain evidence: hearing what you want to hear

In the forth form* I had a memorable music teacher called Mr Williams. He looked and sounded like a mad professor, strode around the class with exaggerated movements and told risque jokes. Which of course endeared him to most forth formers (year 10). Mr Williams was a lot of fun.

One day he rigged up an ancient reel to real tape machine so we could attempt to answer a famous question in musical folklore. Does playing Led Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven backwards reveal satanic messages? While it is true that guitarist Jimmy Page is quite the fan of Alistair Crowley, the fact that this conspiracy was uncovered by the American Christian right ought to make most people run to the church of high skepticism.

On first listen it sounded to most like the strange groaning of something being played backwards. Mr Williams then suggested what some of the words might be, and where to hear them. Around half the class exclaimed 'oh yeah' while the arch sceptics laughed and said it was all nonsense.

That in a nutshell is what happened with the tape of David Bain's emergency call. The police claimed he said 'I shot the prick'. On hearing the tape on the news tonight I am certain I could hear less of the accused words in the Bain tape than I could hear in the backwards Stairway all those years ago. It was simply meaningless garble. The NZ Herald reports.

"...the words had not been recognised in the first trial in 1994 and did not form part of the transcript. Nor had the ambulance officer who took the call heard them. When the ambulance officer was again played the tape after the police detective said the words were there, he had heard "I shot the prick, I shot" and said he was "stunned that I hadn't heard the words previously."

Just as the Christian right had a reason to go after Led Zeppelin, the police had reasons to 'want' to find something to convict their 'man'. Its significant that some of the people advising the police on the case told them not to use it - no doubt they saw as as simply crap evidence that was only going to damage the police case in the eyes of the judiciary. Which it did. Should it have been suppressed? Perhaps the judiciary were trying to help the police save face, as the police have done precious little to help themselves in their conduct of the Bain case. Chief Justice Sian Elias said the evidence was not relevant nor reliable.

This highlights a key problem with the police investigation. The police decided early on that Bain was guilty. So much so, they didn't even bother to collect evidence from the scene that would suggest otherwise. It sounds like a case of Groupthink amongst the police - a similar rationalised conformity in decision making lay at the heart of the Space Shuttle Challenger disaster.

Evidence of the abuse of Laniet by her father gave Robin Bain a strong motive - but the police failed to investigate this option properly. I am inclined to believe Robin was involved somehow, but without the full potential evidence we will never know for sure. It is also possible a proper investigation may have uncovered evidence to indicate Robin's innocence.

So in essence, the police investigation failed the entire family.

PS: A severe lack of critical thinking was also evident with the decisions of our major media outlets to run this as the major news story with headlines like 'I shot the prick' - the next time they criticise the blogosphere for promoting dodgy claims in an irresponsible fashion they deserve to be mocked.

* slight edit - I think I Mr Williams was our third form music teacher, rather than the forth form. It was a few years ago now!

Election 2008: Labour now led by Goff and King

Phil Goff is now leader of the Labour Party, with Annette King acting as his deputy. Both are from the right wing side of the Labour party, and both were allies of Roger Douglas during the forth Labour Government.

It is likely that Labour will move to the right under this leadership team, despite being in opposition. Goff could argue Labour needs to attempt to reconnect with what he sees as the 'centre' in New Zealand politics. This may lead to situations where Key appears to be on the left of Goff on some policies - this cannot be good for the rejuvenation of the Labour party.

Interesting that Goff describes himself as a "loyal Labour party person" - does this explain why he supported the forth Labour Government when they were enacting Act policies? For many he will also be remembered as the Minister who first introduced student tertiary fees.

Its possible the new National/Act/Dunne Government will attempt to shore itself up by starting the age old debate over who is tougher on crime. Act leader Rodney Hide is pushing an expensive three strikes policy and likely Justice Minister Simon Power is known for beating the crime drum. Goff had a reputation as a more reactionary Justice Minister, and King just finished a stint as Minister of Police. I really hope this does not mean they join the right in the meaningless 'mine is tougher than yours' competition. Instead I hope Labour join the Greens and the Maori party to stand up for policies shown to cut crime rates and lessen the need to build more prisons. Rationality may not swing short term political support, but logic has a greater chance over the longer term.

I also fear a Goff/King Labour party would support reactionary amendments to the Suppression of Terrorism Act and similar legislation.

Helen Clark did a great thing by announcing her resignation on election night. While it may have shocked some supporters, Clark was likely to move on in the next three years anyway. She ensured she left the leadership of the Labour party under her own terms, and while making a gracious speech, she also took some of the focus off John Key on election night. She also allowed the parliamentary party to reorganise itself quickly, in order that it can better prepare to challenge the new Government on day one of the Parliamentary term. It also gives the Labour party more time to tweak the leadership before the next election if need be.

Outgoing deputy leader Michael Cullen is upbeat. "We've got the best and strongest intake we've had since 1984, it's a generation, the base for a very strong performance by us moving forward so our message is to the National Party, being a law and order party, is three years and you're out.". He also promised "I don't want to become one of those old men in the Muppet Show up the back." This is a shame - I always though the old men in the Muppets had some of the funniest lines!

While the leadership of Helen Clark was a strength of the Labour party for a number of years, her dominance of the caucus and the party also limited the opportunities for any successors or an organised succession plan. This created the situation where Goff only need to bide his time and he would become the front runner by default.

While Goff was an effective minister this does not necessarily provide the style and skills required to be an effective opposition leader. As a minister Goff often defended Government policies by talking in a monotone and giving his opponents or journalists few opportunities to interrupt - on some days he sounded like a Borg drone powered by the Energizer bunny. As a ministerial tactic this could be useful, but the role of opposition leader requires the ability to empathise and talk in a way the public can identify with. I am not sure Goff is there yet - but this may improve now he is out from under Clark's shadow.

Obama should put Hillary on the Supreme Court

Listening to National Radio early this morning I did enjoy the suggestion made by Jon Johansson that a President Obama should appoint Hilary Clinton to the Supreme Court. As Johansson points out this would mean all of Hilary's conservative detractors would have to put up with Hillary for as long as she lives!

Looking into this idea a little further, I found the American Family News Network made a compelling case for Hillary, even if they might not have meant to. A so-called "pro-family legal expert", Mat Staver hopes the the potential legacy of Clinton is something conservative voters will consider.

"That legacy will likely be whether or not we have abortion for the rest of our lives or whether we restore the sanctity of human life," he explains. "Whether we continue to have [traditional] marriage ... [w]hat kind of security, what kind of family values and religious freedom are we going to have in the next couple of generations," lists the attorney.

The American Taliban have spoken. Many people reading the above will take it as an ringing endorsement of a Clinton candidacy.

While Clinton does not have any judicial experience (she is a lawyer), non judges have been appointed to the Supreme Court before. In 1952 California Governor Earl Warren entered the court. He later became one of the highest regarded Chief Justices, playing a key role in the Brown vs Board of Education case in 1954 that ordered an end to school segregation.

Of course Obama can't simply appoint her - he needs to become President and a Justice needs to die. Perhaps he could appoint her Attorney General (or a similar role) in the meantime, which would give a clear hint of where she might be heading, and avoid any perceptions of the Clintons running the Obama White House.

Given a Republican majority on the Supreme Court voted on party lines to appoint George W Bush to the Presidency in 2000, the Republicans can not credibly complain about politicisation of the Supreme Court. In fact, Hillary would bring welcome balance to the currently conservative bench.

Inner city drinking bans solve nothing

Wellington City Council intends to impose a 24 hour ban on drinking in public in the central city. Apparently Wellington is the only main centre that has not implemented this knee jerk good for nothing measure. What a shame they feel the need to follow suit.

The WCC and the police claim they need to ban everyone from consuming alcohol in order to deal with a small handful of 'drunk vagrants'. But there is a much more appropriate charge already on the statue books - its called drunk and disorderly. The mere fact the WCC and the police are asking for greater powers suggests said vagrants are not being disorderly enough in order to be charged. So the real crime committed by the vagrants appears to be their existence.

Wellington mayor Kerry Prendergast and local business claim the vagrants put Wellington's position as a 'tourist destination' at risk. Yet places like London and Rome get many more tourists than Wellington - they also have many more visible 'vagrants' (I say this partly in jest)

Apparently the measure has been pushed by inner city businesses and bar owners, who do seem to have a habit of assuming public spaces ought really to controlled like their own private spaces. The major winner out of an inner city drinking ban are bar owners. Why do I suspect such a ban will lead to higher drink prices in said establishments?

A couple of friends of my brother were caught by a similar alcohol ban in Christchurch. They were forced to go through diversion for the crime of sharing a single can of beer while they went outside for some fresh air. They also faced a night in 'the cells'. Stupid, ridiculous and disproportionate.

A few years ago I heard there was a real shortage of short term emergency accommodation for men in Wellington. I can't imagine there has been a significant improvement in this problem. For what reasons are these 'vagrants' on the streets? Sadly it appears asking questions like this would be far too much like dealing with the real issue for the WCC. Cheap and nasty political expedience wins the day.

Good on Iona Pannett for being the sole councillor to oppose this silly ban.

Shame on Ray Ahipene-Mercer, Ngaire Best, Stephanie Cook, Jo Coughlan, Andy Foster, Leonie Gill, Rob Goulden, Ian McKinnon, John Morrison, Bryan Pepperall, Celia Wade-Brown, Hayley Wain. Lets hope some of these councillors come off the bandwagon moonshine and come to their senses.

Information on how to make a submission on the proposed bylaw is here. Submissions close 8th May 2008.

Concerns about the Server in the Sky

The Herald reports that New Zealand is to be part of an FBI-led consortium that plans a global database of personal biometric information to "catch criminals and terrorists".

Biometric details and measurements, such as iris scans, palm and fingerprints would be swapped between countries, namely the US, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. As Iain Thompson points out, these five countries already co-operate in running Echelon, the global eavesdropping service that listens and records global telephone, radio and email communications. So while the public face may be in terms of police co-operation, its a fair bet the intelligence agencies will also be able to access this data. Perhaps the GCSB and the SIS see our participation as a way to gain greater access to US intelligence data in return.

While 'officials' in this country claim New Zealand is still considering whether to join the consortium, Police National Forensic Services Adviser Inspector John Walker said it was likely we would do so.

The FBI told the Guardian: "Server in the Sky is an FBI initiative designed to foster the advanced search and exchange of biometric information on a global scale. While it is currently in the concept and design stages, once complete it will provide a technical forum for member nations to submit biometric search requests to other nations. It will maintain a core holding of the world's 'worst of the worst' individuals. Any identifications of these people will be sent as a priority message to the requesting nation."
...
The FBI is proposing to establish three categories of suspects in the shared system: "internationally recognised terrorists and felons", those who are "major felons and suspected terrorists", and finally those who the subjects of terrorist investigations or criminals with international links. Tom Bush, assistant director at the FBI's criminal justice information service, has said he hopes to see a pilot project for the programme up and running by the middle of the year.

The proposal to share information about subjects of terrorist suspects is the most concerning. Suspects are not criminals, and should not be treated like criminals unless you wish to throw out the entire principle of 'innocent until proven guilty'. It is yet another example of governments using the excuse of 'anti-terrorism' to undermine core principles of the legal system for their own convenience.

Some elements of the police and security services in New Zealand have wished for a national biometric database of all citizens, whether they have committed a crime or not. This proposal has faced some resistance. But 'Server in the Sky' has the potential to implement this policy by default. The US now subjects all passengers, even those in transit to compulsory digital finger scans and photographs (which are also stored for an unknown period). Could the proposed consortium allow our police to import the finger scans of New Zealanders they are unable to legally obtain at home?

Even for those with criminal records the system could lead to some unjust outcomes. As a purely hypothetical example, supposing someone picked up a minor conviction in their teens. Years later they are wrongly implicated in a so called anti-terror operation. Due to their old record, their biometric information and criminal history could be spread about the world with little chance for correction.

I don't have so much of a problem with coppers sharing information about internationally active criminals convicted of serious crimes - but I suspect there are procedures in place for this already without the need for massive data sponge.

Interestingly, the US defence contractor linked with the proposed database, Northrop Grumman Corp, is the same company who created the IDENT1 database, an enhanced fingerprint identification system currently used by British police.

It is pleasing to see that the Server in the Sky proposal greeted with an element of scepticism in the UK media. This follows the embarrassing leak of detailed personal information on 40% of the British population late last year, and the case where an arrest for a terror offence by US investigators was based on a misidentified fingerprint match.

In the Guardian Nick Clegg is calling for the proposal to be treated with caution, as nothing, including biometrics, is fail safe. He highlights the importance of safeguards to ensure data collected under UK law remains subject to high data protection standards.
And once data is in the hands of the US authorities, there is no getting it back. We already send them massive amounts of information about air passengers, through a deal brokered by the European Commission, without any guarantee it will be properly safeguarded once it reaches the US. It would be foolhardy to start sharing further information without a simple guarantee: that data collected under UK law should continue to be protected even after it leaves Britain. We should share information when other countries can guarantee data protection standards that match, or exceed our own. Otherwise, who knows which one of us will be on the no-fly list next.

If the Government sign us up for Server in the Sky, at the very least they should be demanding this too. There also needs to be clear procedures to remove all traces of incorrect information. As the Zaoui case and the recent so called 'anti-terror raids' showed, both the SIS and our police are prone to bouts of Groupthink, where erroneous bullshit can only feed presumptions of guilt before innocence.

I hope we stay well clear of Server in the Sky. It can only fall down sometime.

Rickards case raises real issues with jury trials in New Zealand

Says it all really. Now there may be some out there who think I should be showing more respect for the judicial process, but Clint Rickards demonstrated no such respect in his comments outside the court where he declared that his best friends are not guility of rape of a woman in Mt Maunganui in 1989.

"They shouldn't be where they are," Mr Rickards said. "Brad Shipton is a good friend. Bob Schollum is a good friend. They are still good friends of mine and always will be."

In New Zealand a jury is not allowed to take previous convictions into account when arriving at a verdict. This was the reason for the suppression orders.

Not surprisingly, requesting a jury trial became a key part in the defence strategy. But in this case I think it ought to be reasonably asked why the Judge did not disallow a jury trial on the basis the previous convictions were so material to the case.

Now it would not be fair for a previous conviction for burglary to be become a consideration in a rape case, but what about when a convicted person is accused of committing a similar crime under remarkably similar circumstances?

I understand the earlier case involving former policemen Brad Shipton and Bob Schollum also involved "group sex" where one of the participants did not give consent.

A friend raised an interesting example when we were discussing this case in the pub on Friday. If a convicted murderer had a quirk of painting the toenails of his victims blue, and another blue toenailed victim was found, should people be more than a little suspicious if his defence team opted for a jury trial, and he/she got off? It defies "common sense" for want of a better word, and this may help explain the public reaction to the verdict in the Rickards case.

I would also love to see some statistics on how many times cops have been found guilty in a jury trial compared to the average of the rest of the population. I suspect these numbers would be rather interesting...

David Parker and should our politicians be full of convictions?

The resignation of David Parker from all portfolios demonstrates once again how overreaction can often be the best strategy under fire. Political damage is limited as your opponents have nothing to do by agree with your decision.

Don Brash was left trying to make tenuous comparisons with the behaviour of other Ministers - this was only because he was left with little to say about David Parker.

I see political journalists Colin Espiner and John Armstrong both reach the same conclusion. Parker is the fall guy for the mistakes of David Benson Pope. If David Benson Pope had not spent the last few months claiming the tennis ball was out when it was pretty obviously in (would misleading the line umpire would be the appropriate analogy?) perhaps the pressure on David Parker would not have been so urgent. It is a shame Parker is the more able player.

Yet, because of this pressure, Parker will gain greater brownie points among this colleagues for his drastic and quick action. He has done Helen Clark a large favour, and so long as the companies office do not go after him in a big way, he should be back in cabinet within a year or two.

Under the Electoral Act an MP can lose his seat in Parliament if he or she is convicted of a crime punishable by more than two years of imprisonment - this is based on the charge the MP faces, not the actual sentence handed down by a judge. This creates another problem for Parker as filing a false company return, as Parker has done, carries a maximum term of 5 years imprisonment. There is a possibility, abet a remote one, that Parker could be forced out of Parliament.

It may be telling that the Acting Registrar of Companies, Adam Feeley compared Parker's breach of the Companies Act with a traffic infringement.

Even if the Companies Office decides to proceed with a prosecution this does not mean that Parker will necessarily be convicted by a judge. A reasonable case could be made that the consequences of conviction, Parker losing his seat, would outweigh the gravity of the offence. It could be argued that the most serious aspect is that Parker repeated his "mistake" in more than one year, including in a 2005 return while he was a cabinet minister. Assuming Parker has an otherwise unblemished record, I say spare the criminal conviction and give Parker a significant fine.

Recently Don Brash went as far as to accuse the police of 'bias' for not charging Labour over campaign overspending. Of course it was convienent for Brash to forget about the decision of authorities not to take action against National for overspending on election broadcasting, that oh so convienent "mistake" over GST.

Discussing the possibility whether the Companies Office would be taking action, Adam Feeley said, "No regard is had as to who the person is, but rather what the facts of the matter are and what the merits of bringing a prosecution are."

Exactly. Perhaps Mr Feely's words should also be applied to some other recent high profile cases involving politicians accused of potentially illegal acts. It would be an irony if all the shouting from the opposition resulted in a prima facie case of wasting police time. It is the job of the police and other judicial authorities to make the decision whether a "crime" warrants a conviction - and in this MPs should be treated no differently from ordinary members of the public.

PS: I wrote most of this a couple of days ago, but my computer seemed to get a bad habit of attempting to hibernate every time I tried to post it. Gah!