"The Terrorism Files"
850 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 34 Newer→ Last
-
Matthew: New citizens swear oaths of allegience. Does that mean that those granted citizenship can commit treason while the NZ-born can't?
I don't believe that a treason charge could ever be justified in peacetime these days.
-
The shit-talking is not in itself any kind of crime. It is at best circumstantial evidence that might make you think a crime is likely to be committed. Police action in such circumstances is a damned good idea. It's like telling a drunk to calm down, or putting him in a cell to sober up, if his conduct is 'disorderly'.
This kind of action can be abused. The same drunk could be constantly picked out of a crowd of indistinguishable drunks on account of the copper not liking him. That would be persecution. Or the drunk could be strip searched, accused of crimes he hadn't committed and dragged through the criminal system. That would be heavy handed, particularly if that drunk had never actually committed any crime, ever.
So far we don't have enough evidence to know whether it was a damned good idea, persecution, or heavy handedness. Nor can we know. With drunks in NZ there's a well established pattern that they get out of hand and cause all sorts of damage, and police are allowed to and should exercise discretion over how they deal with it. With domestic terrorists we don't have one single example. No one has ever actually done it. There is no established pattern of behaviour. There is no way to objectively evaluate the harm they are likely to cause.
Which means we fall back on preexisting opinions in a highly theoretical way. Those who believe strongly in rights and freedoms go for the idea that this is overkill. Those who believe strongly in protecting society from all harm go the other way. And I can only see this particular issue staying that way, since I really don't think we'll ever have a domestic terror attack in NZ. If we do, it will be an isolated case, there will hardly be a scientific trend to examine. So there will continue to be much ado about nothing.
Being in the rights and freedoms camp, I have no compunction for thinking we really actually need to have a terror attack in NZ before we do anything about it. Call me a fuxor, I really don't care. I don't think terrorism is the end of the world anyway, even in places where it actually does happen. It's a very minor concern, and usually it's happening for a very good reason. The random acts of nutters is not a trend, it's not a pattern, it's not the death of civil society as we know it. It's just one of those things you send cops after if it becomes a problem. Until then you're chasing ghosts, and that has literally no end to it. Do we really need to waste time and money on something that's statistically likelihood is so far zero?
-
A reasonable reaction to people arming, training and talking seriously about killing innocent people?
Do you really think that a reasonable reaction to a small group of people mouthing off is to blockade a whole town?
W
-
sonic
It said an informant was used but it appaears around other aspects rather than the training camps
Most revealing element to me, they were worried about police informers and accused one of their own.
Why would you be concerned about police informers if you were above board in your plans and actions?
Do gun club members too regularly accuse their fellow members of being informers?
Biggest question : "They picked up details of a hui at Victoria University's marae". Hmmm, wonder what that was about?
-
I wandered down the hill to take a look at the hikoi during lunch time: the unintentional irony of ranks of people dressed up in combat fatigues with keffiyah masking their faces chanting 'we're not terrorists' was certainly worth a walk in the wind.
-
"talking seriously"
Were they? thats the point.
Well, yes. This wasn't just d*ckheads sitting around and mouthing off. They were backing up their words with guns.
Talking sh*t is not a crime.
Playing with guns is not a crime.
Combining the two may well be. Maybe not "terrorism", but pretty damned close to being something very nasty.
-
I'm also interested in what role police informers ( paid to infiltrate I assume) played in all of this. How many times did they instigate these conversations.
"I think we should kill John Key"
"I agree mate"
Ok round them up.And if you don't like the way the story's shaping up, pluck something random out of the air to make it sound better ...
Come on. As Kyle said, it's highly unlikely the police would have used paid informants, and somewhat more likely that someone who got involved freaked out and went to the cops.
-
" I don't approve of the standards of behavior you're willing to accept from people around you."
I'm devastated, you really don't approve of me?
I don't know anyone who does talk like that, but even if they did it is not a crime, If I my cross post from Kiwiblog.
If I sit in the pub with my friends and say wouldn’t it be great to rob the post office, and I think the best time would be 2.30 on a Thursday I’ve not commited any crime. If however I get the equipment together and arrange a date, then it is conspiracy to commit robbery.
No plan, no conspiracy.
-
"pretty damned close to being something very nasty"
As I said, is that it?
How many millions of bucks? how many police man hours? how many civil liberties thrown in the toilet? and all we have is "close to being nasty"?
Come on Russell.
-
but shallow that I am, I can't help chortling away to myself ... "Boy, this must really piss off the Herald".
Yep. That occurred to me too ...
-
Come on Russell.
Er, I didn't say that. And no being nasty to Deborah ...
-
Worik
You mean a small group of people possibly with guns and explosives, who had been training to use them from a town with only one road out, and in which there had been experience with criminals accessing community facilities to try and escape.
There's always going to be inconvenience to innocents when the AOS get called out - most don't whine about it and ask for counselling.
-
I don't generally agree with Shane on much, but he did strike something of a chord there. The ideology of Tame Iti does seem to be more about getting himself on TV, than working for the betterment of his people...
as posted on tother thread
tame iti grinsalso of note, who is that smug interviewer and what's up with his pen?, and Paul's story exit reaction.
-
Come on Russell.
Actually, it was me who said "pretty damned close to being something very nasty".
-
Oh and if I may add
"It's highly unlikely the police would have used paid informants"
Really? they do it with every other crime. Why would they suddenly develop scruples around this?
Good question for a enterprising journo though.
"Commissioner, can you assure us that your informant was never paid for any information, or recieved any leniency for crimes they may have committed in return for information"?
-
Sorry Deborah
*blush*
-
Do you really think that a reasonable reaction to a small group of people mouthing off is to blockade a whole town?
Again, you're trivialising the available evidence while talking up accusations about police behavior during the Ruatoki raid. They had people "mouthing off" while backing up that talk with specific associated action. If your neighbour gets into a fight with you and says "I'm going to burn your fucking house down" you might not actually have good cause to believe something said in the heat of the moment is a specific planned threat. But if you see him walking back to his property and coming back out with a petrol can then you probably have good cause to consider his behavior threatening, no?
-
Russell wrote:
There was a fascinating discussion on Kathryn Ryan's show just now, which made it clear that the affadavit has actually been quite widely circulated amongst interested parties. So it's probably a police source, but it might well not have been.
Yesterday in the House Ron Mark asked a "hypothetical" question about appropriate reaction to "hypothetical" quotes which included some of the ones in the affadavit.
So obviously this document has well and truly done the rounds...
Personally, I don't its a good idea - as some have done here - to jsut focus on the quotes and say they might have been being sarcastic, or silly or wheatever.
If it were just those quotes, creepy as they are, this would have - possibly - been an over-reaction by the Police.
But - It was the fact of the those quotes about war, killing people for practice etc and the fact they were detailed and of a pattern over a considerable period of time and the training camps and the buying of firearms and the preparation fo weapon s such as molotov cocktails and the like.
This was a lot more serious than just some blowhards mouthing off.
The DomPost's motivation? Probably the usual. Personally I'm glad more details are out there.
-
So all we have, as predicted, is some wild talk and playing soldiers on a hillside.
Not a good look but hardly "terrorism"
That's a sight worse than some wild talk and some guys learning to fly airplaces and buying box-cutters.
-
Matthew Poole - Thanks for that.
It all seems a bit crowded. Police/AOS/STG (all cops so far?) then SAS.Going to Helen was the process followed as per SAS involvement. I think we could loose STG or a domestic focused SAS.
My suspicion is that there is a cross over of staff in STG/SAS due to the shortage of skilled types not in Iraq as contracts already.
-
The ideology of Tame Iti does seem to be more about getting himself on TV, than working for the betterment of his people...
Thanks very much Tame Iti!! Thanks for thinking about the rest of us.Tame is to my mind first and foremost an artist. Most artists i know especially the good ones are loaded with baggage, very self centred and court publicity. It's his nature to be that way and I respect him for it.
if that's "just a bit of wild talk" to you then I don't approve of the standards of behavior you're willing to accept from people around you.
it's just talk though, no one did anything and there are no detailed plans of any terror attacks or assasinations !!!
lemme guess, you're white, middle class in your 40's, uni educated and probably christian. You don't have many non white friends, poor friends, young friends or stupid friends, maybe you don't have any at all and are looking to apply your set of standards and morals on others while disapproving of those whose standards and morals differ...
...profiling and sterotyping is great eh ???
-
Ok, enough with the breathless hype already.
The question that must be asked, is, "do the "terrorism files" show the other side?"
They are the affidavits presented to a judge in order to get the search warrants that were executed on the 15th of October. As a consequence, they are a selection of juicy evidence that can be construed as presenting a case for search warrants. They aren't a complete or balanced summary - that's not what they are designed for.
But this distinction is being lost, here and elsewhere, in the midst of the high-volume hype. The police are waging a PR war here, having lost considerable ground in the last few weeks, and this contempting of court and justice through the release of selective evidence is the latest round. Unfortunately, it appears to have been taken almost uncritically by most. Including a large number of commenters here.
I don't make a distinction between the Police and the leaker(s) above, and that's deliberate. The Police are a pretty tight organisation, and I find it pretty hard to believe that this action won't have tacit support from most, including the senior ranks. That they've been abused and embarrassed by activists will just have stirred them, as there's little love from the police towards activists at the best of times.
-
Sonci
it is a very common thing for informants to be used and to receive lesser sentences (indeed Rob H can probably cite the part of the Commerce Act that encourages whistleblowing) but that doesn;t mean the events didn;t happen.
different story if it was a placed informer acting as agente provocoteur
-
Come on. As Kyle said, it's highly unlikely the police would have used paid informants, and somewhat more likely that someone who got involved freaked out and went to the cops.
You must admit that it is feasible, if unlikely. That's one reason why surveillance evidence isn't always admissable (it isn't admissable *at all* in some jurisdictions like the UK).
And why a trial for minor arms charges against a background of partial surveillance evidence leaked (illegally) by people within the police is likely to lead to a miscarriage of justice. All of which makes it harder to buy the "trust the police, they are your protectors against the bad people" line that the centre-left is trotting out.
-
This is interesting from the "timeline"
"February 28: 12.32 pm Sunday Star-Times journalist phones a suspect saying the paper has an anonymous letter about guerrilla training in the Ureweras. Suspect denies it."Anyone know more about that?
Post your response…
This topic is closed.