Waihopai activists found not guilty

Abortionists excise tissue that wd not live at that stage out of the body... like a cyst. and as a female i strongly support abortion (tho oppose those who are lazy &useless about contraception) and I'm in two minds wether males shd even get a say about what a woman does with her body... but before i get my head bit off I am also in two minds about males having to pay since they dont get a say

Misdirection!If you want to start an abortion thread go there. FFS.Did anyone bother to read through to the link? This is an exceptional circumstance where many international bodies and states declared the war illegal.The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi
Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the UN Charter point of view, it [the
war] was illegal."<h4><span ="mw-line" id="Commission_of_Inquiry_of_Dutch_Government">Commission of Inquiry of
Dutch Government</span></h4> Also, the commission concluded that the notion of "regime change" as
practiced by the powers that invaded Iraq had "no basis in international
law." <sup id="cite_ref-32" ="reference"><span>[</span>33<span>"></span>
<sup id="cite_ref-33" ="reference"><span>[</span>34<span>"></span>
Also, the commission found that UN resolution 1441 "cannot reasonably
be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military
force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council's resolutions.Then UK Foreign Secretary Jack
Straw sent a secret letter to Prime Minister Tony
Blair in April 2002 warning Blair that the case for military action
against Iraq was of "dubious legality." In November 2008, Lord Bingham of Cornhill,
the former Lord Chief Justice and Senior Law Lord of the United Kingdom,
stated that British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's advice to the
British Government contained "no hard evidence" that Iraq had defied UN
resolutions "in a manner justifying resort to force" and that the
invasion was "a serious violation of international law and of the rule
of law.

Yes, but this isn't the way everyone views things, and not every views the Waihopai spy base as a vital tool in the murder of Iraqi's. Therefore the issue becomes one of - its ok to break the law for something I agree with, but not ok for something YOU agree with.

These are reasons to genuinely believe that the war was illegal. They are all areas that have bearing on our case law or are closely related to our law.There is no such case law for abortion in New Zealand. We are not signatories of an international treaty that makes abortion illegal.

I'm more an animal rights nut and if I ever won powerball I wd be quite happy to hire mercenaries to go round China destroying bear bile factories and puppy coat farms but I still know in doing so I'm committing a crime and wd be prepared to face the consequences. I think those guys were quite prepared to land in jail as is the sea shepherd guy. I just think that law is misguided and they were wrong to use it and the jury was wrong to accept it

The legal verdict as you put it is what determines if it is a crime or not.�This defence has been found to be a valid one due to the exceptional circumstances and the extreme and specific consequences of the one decision: to go to war in Iraq. This would not be a legitimate defence in any other situation. Tegal and Aitkenmike are scaremongering and worried their activities might get ruled on by the UN or opined about by a Law Lord of the Privy Council.eck. lunchtime.edit: Mike I hope this answers your question. Please don't forget the 12 members of the jury who also unanimously found the accused to be not guilty when presented with this defence.

Can I ask what this means? I'm very confused here.

I'm saying that in my opinion, the application of the law was wrong by the jury. In my opinion the belief of preventing a possible harm to a person is not enough, their should need to be an actual harm that can be shown to have been prevented (as i said back on page 2). It should need to be a more direct link than something as intangible as a possible link to supporting an illegal war causing the loss of life.

If for example they could show somehow that information was about to be sent to the war machine that would cause harm to a particular person or group of people and that was prevented (or they attempted to prevent it) from being sent, I would have much more sympathy for them.