"The Terrorism Files"
850 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 29 30 31 32 33 34 Newer→ Last
-
Next Saturday 1December there are marches planned. Indy Media are off line again (?).
I was thinking of wearing a silk scarf to get into some Terrorist Camp ; )
-
Yeah. And I should add- only after evidence enough of a crime.
The "war on terror" is a rhetorical stupidity taken tragically in the wrong direction at every intersection. Calling it a war, calling the criminals responsible terrorists... we know the rest.
Bringing that to NZ is just lunacy in red pyjamas. Like one of those nightmares where you know what's going to happen, you scream at the driver- look out! look out! and he turns and smiles calmly at you and still smiling calmly he swerves into the on-coming truck. -
Horrible.
You capture my sense of this exactly. It is bizarre and surreal, mainly because I had managed to maintain my belief that with our relatively "neutral" stance on Iraq etc that we were effectively buying out of the whole war on terror thing.
War on Terror - I imagine you have all notice what an absolute nonsense the phrase is - even apart from being oxymoronic. I know I'm a bit of a stickler about the unconscious power of words, but I think that as a catch phrase this has been intended to convey a sense that Bush et al are going to put ALL our fears to rest - it is not just a war on Terrorism or terrorists (as if that were possible in the first place) but on Terror itself - nice Mr Bush is promising to tuck us all up safe and cozy in bed, with a cup of irradiated milk after, of course, saying our prayers.
So I'm still wondering how/why it has come to this. Ok:
We know that the Police can get all worked up about stuff - get an idea and then interpret (or even select) the evidence so it fits - AAThomas, Bain, now perhaps Scott Watson, and no doubt lots of others we'll never know about. I think there is an element of that here... (this is where a bit of racism come in too, I suspect, i.e. misunderstanding/mistrust of motives + moko = terrorist).
We know that there is the coincidence with the review of the STA and maybe the police or govt wanted to leverage the situation...
We know that fear is invoked to pave the way to increasing state power (and media income)...
We know that there is pressure to live up to international agreements... (though we obviously feel free to ignore the UN declaration on Indigenous Rights, and the UN criticisms of the unequal status of Maori)...
Is that what it amounts to? A nasty coincidence of a rag-tag bunch of ill-conceived notions and a couple of sparks of almost-conspiracy and suddenly we've joined the ranks of the International Avengers against the Axis of Evil et al.
Can we really be that dumb?
-
Yeah. And I should add- only after evidence enough of a crime.
The "war on terror" is a rhetorical stupidity taken tragically in the wrong direction at every intersection. Calling it a war, calling the criminals responsible terrorists... we know the rest.
Bringing that to NZ is just lunacy in red pyjamas.
You might want to ponder who brought it though. I have a copy of the affidavit seen by the Dom Post -- I wish I could just link to it -- and it's clear enough to me that there were individuals involved who drew their own parallels with contemporary terrorism.
Perhaps we could also have a word of condemnation for them too.
-
Is that what it amounts to? A nasty coincidence of a rag-tag bunch of ill-conceived notions and a couple of sparks of almost-conspiracy and suddenly we've joined the ranks of the International Avengers against the Axis of Evil et al.
Can we really be that dumb?
Oh come on, Sara... while I've been critical of the Police response, I don't think this can be quite so easily dismissed. And does it make me one of the 'International Avengers against the Axis of Evil' that I still believe it would be nice if the perpetrators of the Rainbow Warrior bombing (which I will never apologize for calling an act of state-sponsored terrorism) had, at least, served out the balance of their sentence in a New Zealand prison?
And, sorry, I think it's utterly beyond the pale to even be talking about murdering a politician - any politician, and do expect our law enforcement agencies to take any such threats extremely seriously. I just don't know why I need to keep repeating that.
-
Plotting to kill people is dreadful. It's a crime and those who seriously intend to commit it are nasty criminals. I think everyone can agree on that.
I'm with Sara regarding the power of symbols here. Calling alleged nasty criminals terrorists and giving us images of "commando style" police with assault rifles is precisely the wrong way to deal with them.
It induces- I think unnecessarily- fear, and fear polarises people; it draws sharp lines across divides where many of us would wish to extend hands; and it glorifies nasty criminal behaviour.
There's an "insider/outsider" element to the evidence, that itself has become divisive and which also breeds suspicion. Most of us have no idea whether what we're hearing is solid evidence of serious intent or stupid bluster. What we can clearly see is how it's been dealt with, so we're commenting on that.
Craig, if I were to trawl through all your references to politicians on this blog, strip them of irony and context, and present them to people unaware of your- hm, hyperbolic style, I bet I could make you look a little unhinged too ;-) Perhaps you tone it down significantly when talking in private with people you trust?
There's a difference between serious plotting and loud-mouth blather. If some of those charged were involved in a genuine plot to kill people, they are nasty criminals and are best locked up. If they are loud-mouthed idiots, they need to learn to shut their mouths...
In the meantime, the news cycles move on, the politicians have fallen silent, and many of us are left with a deep, uneasy feeling that the ties that bind us as a nation, the "social contract" if you will- the default goodwill between New Zealanders- already strained and attenuated- has been further weakened and undermined.
That makes me sad. -
I'm with Sara regarding the power of symbols here. Calling alleged nasty criminals terrorists ...
But what say they're calling themselves terrorists? And explicitly discussing and acting on models for contemporary terrorism?
There's an "insider/outsider" element to the evidence, that itself has become divisive and which also breeds suspicion. Most of us have no idea whether what we're hearing is solid evidence of serious intent or stupid bluster. What we can clearly see is how it's been dealt with, so we're commenting on that.
The document that's online has clearly been leaked by someone on the defence side. I wish I could post the link, but I don't really want a nastygram from the Solictor General.
In context, some of the headline quotes published by the Dom Post do read to me like bluster, and I can see how it didn't reach the high threshold for TSA charges. But there's a lot there that strikes me as completely indefensible.
-
But what say they're calling themselves terrorists? And explicitly discussing and acting on models for contemporary terrorism?
Perhaps it's simplistic, but I'd say don't feed their fantasy, don't buy their model, and put them in prison if there's any good evidence of a criminal conspiracy. But with other criminals of all stripes, not a "special" prison for terrorists.
Conspiracy to murder is horrible, pretty much whatever one's motives. Making a special catagory for those with political motives- "terrorists"- still seems to me to be heading down the wrong- dangerously wrong- road. -
Making a special catagory for those with political motives- "terrorists"- still seems to me to be heading down the wrong- dangerously wrong- road.
Its a valid point, is it a worse crime to plan to kill the PM than it is to plan to kill Joe Bloggs next door? What if your intent in killing the PM is to destabilise the Govt for some nefarious purpose? Is intending to destabilise, or otherwise weaken the Govt a separate crime, or a factor to be taken into account in the sentencing of the intent to kill charge?
Its kind of analogous to the Hate Crime and Home Invasion type legislation that pops up - is kicking shit out someone more of a crime if you call them a queer while you're doing it? Is beating someone up more of a crime if you bust through their front door to do it, than if you do it outside their front gate? -
(which I will never apologize for calling an act of state-sponsored terrorism)
Er ... who's asking you to apologise? Is there any dispute that it was state-sponsored terrorism? (Aside from the French?)
-
The document that's online has clearly been leaked by someone on the defence side.
That's what I took from it too. Very interested in material to do with Lockett.
Do you know if this the same document that the Dom used? Or did they have a different version?
It would put a lot of claims about "Police leaking like a sieve to try and cover their butts" in the light of day.
-
Do you know if this the same document that the Dom used? Or did they have a different version?
There is apparently one page missing. About Lockett ...
-
ahhh... re: other post with no comments.
can i please say, "i told you so"?
key.stone.cops.
-
There is apparently one page missing. About Lockett ...
Ah. "Selective leaking", "things out of context", "don't know the full story", "probably not a true picture at all"!
Sorry, don't know where that came from. Must have read it somewhere.
-
kyle... you think of firing the broad-side?
if you get my meaning.
-
Craig, if I were to trawl through all your references to politicians on this blog, strip them of irony and context, and present them to people unaware of your- hm, hyperbolic style, I bet I could make you look a little unhinged too ;-) Perhaps you tone it down significantly when talking in private with people you trust?
Rob: I'm sure you'd find with very little effort any number of disobliging references to The Evil Demoness Helen Clark over my signature - a good number of them not worthy of the Miss Manners seal of approval.
I would, however, be rather surprised (and properly ashamed) if I ever went so far over the top as to suggest murdering Clark would be a good idea. I imagine Russell would have a zero tolerance for such commentary on PAS.
Look, I could also draw up a long list of comments where I've made it clear that IMHO the Police's handling of this case has been less than impressive, and there are many politicians and media folks who should STFU and stop throwing around terms like 'terrorist' with gay abandon. Don't think we disagree there, at all.
However, that doesn't mean I'm buying into the ridiculous meme that this was just some racist, Bush-fellating plot to put the frighteners up some uppity nig-nogs and tree-huggers either.
-
kyle... you think of firing the broad-side?
"Not me!" said the... y'know. Thing.
-
Could I just ask people who have found the document not to explicitly divulge its contents? There are laws against that that I'd rather not completely flout as a publisher.
-
were all capable of joining the linch mob's...
We've certainly lynched people for less egregious misuse of the apostrophe... But aside from that, there has been a wide range of opinion on PAS, but the majority of it hasn't been even close to lynch mob territory.
-
I'm not sure the Dom Post did cherry pick perfectly. They got most of the worst stuff, but not all - there's a couple of bits in there that I would have put on the front page but they didn't.
The elephant just got bigger for me. Things that I thought would be 'crazy Lockett' weren't, and people who have been in the media denying stuff... blah.
It's not exactly Tom Clancy stuff though. The police are pretty thorough and detailed, but god it needs a rewrite before Harrison Ford will ever sign up for it.
-
I've never seen an application for a search warrant - but this does appear genuine. There are 2 pages missing which appear to relate to the same person. The annotations seem to be have been made by someone assessing the information with a view to presenting a defence.
The impression in the document is of a bunch of naive whackos, with a leavening of genuinely disturbed individuals.
I wouldn't be rushing to defend the behaviour of any of them.
-
Sue,
oops probably shouldn't have posted that, where is the delete button when you need it
-
Could I just ask people who have found the document not to explicitly divulge its contents? There are laws against that that I'd rather not completely flout as a publisher.
Would it help if we all moved over to the Radiation thread and discussed whether an old episode of Mortimer's Patch did or did not screen (similar to the Captain Pugwash/Seaman Staines myth)?
"I don't think Mortimer had any choice but to go in guns blazing - when Activist One said: ..."
</toocleverbyhalf?>
-
guns blazing
er ... maybe 'boots and all' would have been a better turn of phrase ...
-
oops probably shouldn't have posted that, where is the delete button when you need it
S'alright. I deleted it for you. Funny though.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.