Spies and Espionage

Remove all ads!

There isn't an international law against espionage in times of peace but every country has laws against it. However, during war (even if the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations consider espionage an acceptable form of warfare)if a spy is caught, he is denied the POW status (regardless if he is a member of the military or not) and he is considered to be a civilian and therefore bound by the laws about civilians during warfare.

 

I don't mind if the police spy on me. I've got nothing to hide. Breach of privacy? Oh no! The police know I collect plush toys! The investigator will probably forget about it within a week anyway. If they do reveal this then you can sue them.

Affairs of national security should ALWAYS override the rights of an individual. However I fail to see how Isreal is preventing a breach of national security by spying on New Zealand. We're as dangerous as a block of cheese!

 

I thought the issue was more about obtaining NZ passports and identities for use in spying on *other* countries. And NZ was upset in that it would damage the integrity of the NZ passport, and so bring suspicion to all NZ passport holders...

 

Bion, actually, you are correct. The biggest issue for New Zealanders should be the fact that these activities undermine the value and integrity of the NZ passport which is pretty much the most important identity document we have. Imagine getting stranded in some foreign country because your passport had been inflitrated by some spy.

 

Yeah, you could be stuck in NZ and never make it back to your native Pitcairn Islands...

 

What, are we planning to throw the Bledisloe Cup and invade 12 hours later when everyone's passed out drunk? Or are they just going to export Shannon Noll and have him make everyone capable of resistance kill themselves by saturation broadcasting of "What About Me?" and "Overdrive"?

/me leers evilly at Harbourboy and Abomination

But seriously, it's pretty low what France and now Israel have done in New Zealand. Just because it's not a big country or hasn't fought any wars recently (note: that's a good thing), that doesn't mean you don't treat them with respect. Treating New Zealand like some a$%-backwards forgotten state is AUSTRALIA's job, damn it!

The NZ in "ANZUS" isn't from Australia or the States, Carcaroth. But I'm not sure of how committed to that treaty New Zealand is. Australia's PM, however, generally needs Dubya's permission to do anything these days and is rather slavishly adhering to it (though not unwisely, I would state).

 

NZ is not in the good books, defence-wise, with the USA. Not only is that ongoing issue about us not letting any of their ships come here if they are nuclear powered (or even if they refuse to confirm to us whether they are nuclear powered or not), but we also refused to be an American pawn in the recent war in Iraq. Because our Prime Minister could see no UN mandate for the war, she did not allow us to send troops.

Bold stuff, but can NZ afford to be that bold? (see previous comments re the pathetic state of our 'defence' system).

 

We can afford to be that bold. I'm certain we could rely on America to defend us if we were attacked, much like any English-speaking country could rely on other English-speaking countries to defend them if they were attacked.

We showed this boldness during the 2nd World War when we declared war on Germany immediatly after the United Kingdom and before Australia did.

As for being committed to ANZUS, we are. We don't let nuclear powered anything in our country (damned if I know why) and we have sent troops to Iraq to assist the population. We do want to please our allies but we're not going to do everything they say, because if we did it wouldn't be an alliance, we would just be an extension of America.

 

That boldness could also be related to all that water surrounding you and the comparative lack of strategical value of the Islands. I also think you need to re-think your English speaking criteria, both India and Pakistan are English speaking, do you think they would automatically be defended if attacked?

 

Sorry, I forgot about those two countries. I should have said 'white' English-speaking countries.

And no mentions about racisim or any crap like that. You all know what I mean.

 

You mean western countries. Right?

 

France is a western country, Russia could be called a western country, Japan is very westernised.

 

Yeah. Actually, I think that the most interesting about declaration of wars of that time is Canada. The only not directly threatend of the English speaking countries that actually entered the war from the beginning. India, Austrialia and New-Zealand were all directly threatend by Japan. Yet South-Africa and the USA never declared war against the axis-powers. Germany and Japan declared (in case of Japan, sort of) against the USA, not the other way around. Soo much to your theory. And one of the reasons for the appeasement policies of the UK in the thirties was, that they were quite sure that neither Canada, New Zealand, Australia or India would join a war to help them in a war in Europe again.

 

Oh back then it was different. But today that would never happen. I was talking about New Zealand being bold with the second paragraph, not about the english nations being buddies (unless you were commonwealth - but that soon changed during the war with Australia disliking the Brits because they wouldn't allow Australian soldiers to come home and defend against Japan).

 

Maybe I'm crazy, but IMHO Pearl Harbour was somewhat more than "sort of". So were Midway, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

 

But they didn't actually 'declare' war. They just attacked.

 

Well, no, they (Japan) declared war about an hour after they attacked - still a declaration of war...
(And I got an A+ for my essay on that subject )

(And is it just me, or is this the only thread in the AoDA that doesn't have to take itself entirely too seriously with long winded posts of people talking to themselves?)

 

I didn't mean that as a knock on NZ. I meant that there is greater tension between the US and NZ than between the US and Australia. Must be the brand of chap stick John Howard uses... and will probably continue to use until Costello takes over.

Completely off-topic: does anyone else find it amusing that the Australian government has Abbott and Costello as two of our Cabinet members?

 

Didn't take it as a knock on NZ
We ARE committed however the agreement says nothing about us having to allow nuclear technology in our country or forcing us to jump into any war that America declares. We are complied to assist America and/or Australia if they are attacked yet if they declare war we do not have to assist.

We uphold our end of the bargain and we enjoy the treaty but we're not going to blindly follow the US.

 

This is ridiculous. Actually it is not. It is diplomacy. And it is natural.
When a bigger spying scandal happens, countries always make a big diplomatic case from it, this is natural. Wanting apologies etc. Both sides know that they are spying each other, but when a bigger thing happens, they bring it to the public eye.

I entirely agree. Although both are natural. The first activity (i.e. finding people for the latter activity and paying them) is made by people who are not the citizens of the country, but are the actual spies (with diplomatic passports). These are the (intelligence) officers, while the "traitors" (those who steal from their own country) are the so-called agents.
If the agents get caught, they are condemned for spying, the officers (who payed them) just have to leave the country (don't remember the correct term for this). Although I don't think that this applied e.g. in Iraq (and applies e.g. in North-Korea...)