It is not good enough when Mark Mitchell refuses to answer if he killed anyone
I was critical of the way the Greens had sold Golriz’s back story, but her role in defending war criminals is a million miles away from actually committing war crimes & on that front the utter lack of scrutiny over Mark Mitchell’s role in paramilitary death squads in Iraq is astounding.
In Iraq, Bush passed ‘Order 17’ which exempted private mercenaries from Iraqi law meaning they couldn’t be prosecuted for killing civilians – when Mark Mitchell refuses to answer if he killed anyone in Iraq, it’s actually not good enough of an answer!
This man is now running for the leadership of the largest political party in NZ, not answering about his time as a mercenary in a war zone where mercenaries were ruthlessly murderous just isn’t an option!
Mitchell says he was pushed to run weeks ago, yet has left it as late as possible which limits any real scrutiny over his time in Iraq.
The question NZ journalists need to start demanding from Mitchell is the following:
Did you, or any off your fellow mercenaries injure or kill any civilian while you were on tour in Iraq?
Get him on the record! He needs to answer that question.
Kim Hill is the only journalist in NZ who is capable of getting details from Mitchell on the topic of the likelihood of him having killed people during his “security consultancy” business dealings in Iraq.
However, because of Hill’s expert journalistic skill in extracting information from her subjects, in typical Natz cowardly dishonest mode Mitchell will be well advised to steer a wide berth away from Hill to be “on the safe side!”
Given his suspect activities in Iraq, then indulging in dirty politics to get the Rodney seat, Mitchell is totally unsuitable to be in Parliament as an MP at all, let alone put himself forward to challenge the Natz leadership!
Just read Stacey Kirk’s in-praise-of-Mitchell and I am not sure if she thinks we’re all simpletons. She headlines that Mitchell is “no gun for hire,” although he himself doesn’t appear to say that at all, busy as he is talking himself up as the ultimate redeemer of dogs. Wow.
Most offensive is Mitchell referring disparagingly to “peacenicks’, and saying, “peacenicks having no real understanding of the world.” Wrong, we do, and many know more than Mark Mitchell ever will. Peace is certainly not the dirty word that war is, and it would behove Mitchell to rethink how he prioritises, and why.
How can we get any answers when we continue to get articles from the right wing, National loving Audrey Young. Even when there is a power playing frenzy, where it’ is dog eat dog, ego eat ego, Young continues to promote National as if they are still the Government…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12000648
National Health Policy and Housing Policy has probably killed more people than Mitchell ever has and half the countrys voters don’t seem to care one iota.
You really are getting your knickers in a twist over this Martin. You have no evidence he killed anybody, unlike your heroes, (and leaders of nations) Mao, Lenin and Justin Trudeau’s daddy, Castro
@ Gary … When we lived in Orewa (Rodney seat), I was in a cafe one time and Mark Mitchell walked in. It was the first time I had laid eyes on him, yet a cold chill went down my spine and I felt very uncomfortable.
My intuition told me all I needed to know about the man in that brief moment!
Agree. Mitchell seems to have John-Keyesque charm. He seems warm, but he does have to answer your question.
So after the god bothering drunkard bush gave these low life scum carte blanche to murder rape and abuse the citizens of Iraq this low life dirt bag made himself a fortune!!!
Woopee just the sort of leader the sheeple of this country need.
Come on, why be so precious about what he did, or did not, if he was the kind of ‘mercenary’ involved in the said activities, one can connect the dots, I think, and any decent person would not vote in a mercenary to lead a major party, would they?
That is, except in a caucus like the National one, of course.
He will not get the job, he is too much of a Hillbilly type of politician, from the provinces, the farmlands.
To lead a major party and have potential to win elections, one must be able to appeal to the urban population, he clearly does not, not most that is.
He has the charisma of a parachute, nothing more, how good is that?