Speaker: Pt 2: Terrorism Charges -- What's Involved
68 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
Graeme we'll have to agree to disagree on "I do think TV3 were just lucky."
The leaks in this are all planned and so too TV3 coverage. One here & there sure but every news story has a new source vouching for the veracity of totally incredible claims.
Napalm or was it a molotov or was it paint thinner for Tames paint brushes? No it was napalm which is rather specific.I must say my dealings with Chch Cops has always been pretty good.
So yeah boo ya sucks to Wlg bobbies -
For the purposes of this Act, a terrorist act is carried out if any 1 or more of the following occurs:
(a) planning or other preparations to carry out the act, whether it is actually carried out or not:
(b) a credible threat to carry out the act, whether it is actually carried out or not:
(c) an attempt to carry out the act:
(d) the carrying out of the act.Right from day one Broad was saying the reason they acted when they did was because they "perceived a credible threat" so it would appear that that is the section of the TSA they intended to use. I still think it more than a coincidence that the raids took place just before the second reading of the amendment to the act. however, I still find it hard to fathom the reason. Could it be that the police were trying to embarrass the Govt. for what they were doing to Rickards and Dewar et al? If so then maybe we should send in Mallard to bop Broad on teh snotter.
-
Michael, as a cameraman and someone who has talked to Cam about the stuff he got on Abel Smith street, I can set your mind at rest (I hope). Looking at the raw vision, it's quite clear that the cops tolerated the camera for a little bit, but as soon as Cam got close to the house and could actually see over the fence and shoot the door being broken down, the cops told him quite firmly to fuck off - which is kinda standard. That's why the rest of the stuff is from across the road. You might notice that a gentleman in civilian clothing goes to some lengths to hide his face as he walks into the house. Presumably, he works in a spookier part of the police. Cam got some wonderful stuff, but be assured, the cops NEVER tip off an operation of this type to the media. At best, we are merely tolerated, at worst, we're a mouthy obstacle that potentially puts their operation in jeopardy.
A successful visual media organisation will go to quite large lengths to get good pictures. For the camera operator, its a bit of a lottery in these circumstances. One day you might get great pictures, and a bit of a growl from the cops. Other days, you'll get arrested, as happened to another TV3 cameraman during an anti-bypass demonstation nearby to Abel Smith street.
-
Could it be that the police were trying to embarrass the Govt. for what they were doing to Rickards and Dewar et al?
Well, the actions against Rickards and Dewar etc were taken by the police, and would have been signed off by Broad most likely. The government didn't interfere in the decisions to prosecute at all, and as far as I'm aware, they have no power to do so.
And you wouldn't need to ask him to know that Broad and a heap of other cops have been positively spewing over Rickards and Dewar etc. It will have been the bane of the Commissioner's life for the past year, and a conviction of Rickards would have made his life much easier now with the reinstatement etc issue.
-
Hi Public Address,
I haven't posted in ages which some of you may consider a great favour so,
*lodges cotton wool in cheek*
"Now maybe you can do me a favour"
The school I work at has entered and has made the final five of a competition to create and produce a song around the integrated use of ICT in our school and classroom. There is a rather large portion of prize action up for grabs and I'd like you to help us win it. If you go to the url below,
http://contest.interwritelearning.com/contestant/90/
and vote for us I'd be ever so greatful. You have to create an account to vote which will cost nothing but a little of you time and an email addy. You get to watch a video which is based around our school and stars some of our kids and some guy who shall remain nameless, heh.
P.S. I'm going to spam this message on loads of threads and if this irritates you, I do apologise. -
Naming someone a 'terrorist' in New Zealand should be viewed with ULTIMATE gravity. It is the worst appellation you can assign to an individual in the modern world. When a government does it then every other government listens.
No-one knows what the details of the charges against the recent accused are. But we need to. The idea that justice must be seen to be done is critical.
I have a feeling that the New Zealand taxpayer is looking at the biggest compensation payout in its history. It will be huge and will find support from the United Nations.
The government cannot continue to argue it is 'a Police matter'. The police minister cannot continue to argue it is 'an operational matter'.
Accusation of this magnitude have to come from the very top. The buck has to stop somewhere.This action which has been conducted with flat-footed stupidity. It was, by definition, an act of terror on the the people of New Zealand. Creating hysteria, as it has done, brings disgrace to New Zealand's standing in the world when once we were famous for being the 'decent' society.
If the police are left to make these bizarre and consequential decisions about national security then we should all be vigilant.
-
I have a feeling that the New Zealand taxpayer is looking at the biggest compensation payout in its history.
Really? Bigger than the Tainui payout? Bigger than the Ngai Tahu claim?
-
Good point David.
When travelling to the states they do ask about arrests not only convictions - so even if they drop charges now none of these guys are off to Disneyland anytime soon.Popped along to the Greens last night & Keith said the SIS briefing was nowhere near as alarmist as the cops to the media.
Didn't Phil Goff cap payouts recently?
-
When travelling to the states they do ask about arrests not only convictions - so even if they drop charges now none of these guys are off to Disneyland anytime soon.
Since they were arrested on firearms rather than terrorism charges (of which none have yet been forthcoming) I think that might be less of an issue. The only use of the terrorism legislation so far has been its inclusion on the search warrants, and I don't think you're asked to declare those.
More of a worry would be that (given recently reported budgets for such things) the US can probably afford to have somebody reading the Herald who can add some names to a few lists somewhere.
-
Naming someone a 'terrorist' in New Zealand should be viewed with ULTIMATE gravity. It is the worst appellation you can assign to an individual in the modern world. When a government does it then every other government listens.
Someone, somewhere will defend a terrorist as a freedom fighter. I'd rather be called a terrorist than a pedophile.
-
Didn't Phil Goff cap payouts recently?
No.
I suspect you're thinking of the Prisoners and Victims Claims Act. It doesn't apply to this situation.
And in the situations it does apply it doesn't limit payouts.
-
Yeah, I wouldn't be volunteering to go through US airspace if I had the terrorist label. I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons the defence have been going for name suppression.
-
Rogerd said:
"Someone, somewhere will defend a terrorist as a freedom fighter. I'd rather be called a terrorist than a pedophile."
To the first point I agree. I quoted the excellent book Unspeak on my blog recently
'Asymmetric warfare' is the term employed by the US Military for fighting people who don't line up properly to be shot at: on one side you have battalions of American infantry, marines, tanks and aircraft; and on the other you have terrorist, or guerrillas, or militants, or insurgents. But the more revealing asymmetry lies in the giving of names in the 'war on terror'. We are soldiers; you are terrorists. Asymmetric warfare means: we are fighting a war; but you are not. And so when we capture you, do not expect to be a prisoner of war. You will be a terrorist suspect, an illegal combatant, a ghost detainee. And so the deliberate blurring of categories in the phrase 'war on terror' led straight to Abu Ghraib.
To the second point I'd rather not be wrongfully named as either a terrorist or a pedophile. And if I was I would want there to be a consequence for my accuser. The truth, if such a thing exists, is that mud sticks and most of us don't have access to 'perfect knowledge'.
Depending on your bias you will believe the most convenient truth for your world-view.BTW I intensely dislike the Tuhoe tactics etc but I hardly think it warrants going to 'war' with them - even a phony war waged in the media.
-
Finn - The guys at LAX see themselves as the frontline in the war on terror.
A Polish school girl on exchange to NZ had an entry visa for the USA but not a transit visa. She was accompanied by her host NZ family & working on the correct advice of their agt. She was held in prison with druggies & the like only to be deported from the US.
Everything was correct with no threat from a teenage school girl, but she got treated like a criminal.
These guys & girls are going nowhere fast. -
I was wondering what would happen if someone, say winston peters was to give the PM a slap in the face.
I think she could take him.
A lot better than her husband could anyway.
-
"I intensely dislike the Tuhoe tactics etc"
What Tuhoe tactics are you referring to?
-
The Herald has a story up, "Police 'violated civil rights' at Ruatoki here
I think it is pretty damning. Of all the questionable things that the police did, the taking of photos is the part that I cant stomach. I know they have done it before but that doesn't make it ok. If I was searched and photographed at a roadblock in NZ I don't think my view of the police would ever recover.
-
It gets a lot worse than that - real intimidation and humiliation of women and children. Wait for Williams' counter-suits.
Apparently the Attorney General has undertaken to have his decision out re ST charges this week.
And again to "ThoughtSpur", what are the Tuhoe tactics you disagree with?
-
Hi Sara Noble, I agree that there were worse things in that article I linked to. For me personally, it is the image of being asked to get out of my car and be photographed in front of it with a number that gets me. This in itself is enough to get exercised about. This is where I feel frustrated with the 'wait and see' types on PAS.
-
Kowhai, I agree, especially with your last sentence, but I'm giving up on continuing to argue about it in the other thread :-(
-
Hmmm. For me the problem is the large number of different (though related) issues tangled up in this case. On the photographing and the damage to peoples houses and the surveillance, I feel no need to wait. On marching to protest the innocence of the detained, mebbe. On the problems with have with remand, for all remand prisoners, not just these ones - no waiting required.
I have promised myself that some time over the next few days I'm going to write down and review everything I think about this whole mess, just so I can get the Stephen Judd party line straight.
-
Sara, What I like about Tame Iti is his attempt to develope a sense of purpose within many who are otherwise lost.
I do not believe he has anything to do with terrorisim to any degree as all of his actions to date have been nonviolent upon any person. Guns etc have been used within the cultural context of Tuhoe with no threat to life.
Did Paul Bucanon say the grenade launcher could be a spud gun?!
-
I basically agree with all the sentiments on the page above, but the thing that truly disgusts me about this is that, as a nation, we have fallen for the smoke and mirrors of the Right's campaign of Terror.
The Pakeha left seems pretty much in agreement that the STA and amendments are problematic, that civil liberties are underattack and that the police have overstepped the mark. We pick over the evidence and details of these issues with good reason. But all that assumes a position within the New Zealand State.
Beyond that, and I think even more importantly, this is yet another chapter in the struggle for sovereignty and/or self determination between Maori and the Crown. Tuhoe never ceded sovereignty either by treaty or conquest; their vision is of peaceful co-existence as an independent nation within the country. There are many models for this already in existence.
Paul Buchanon's piece was very helpful in separating out the requirements for an act of terrorism:
1. Ideology: Tuhoe's is well established and constructive: peaceful, sovereign co-existence. NZ Government: absolute sovereign dominance.
2. Means: Tuhoe - some guns mainly used for hunting. Life skills, bush craft and firearms safety training. NZ Government: an armed police force, high tech surveillance, guns, tasers etc
3. Planning and execution: Tuhoe - 0, NZ government: reams of e-mail, text and telephone transcripts, co-ordination and mobilisation across multiple locations, intimidation, detention and destruction of infrastructure achieved.
-
I realise that a lot of Pakeha, and probably some Maori, would consider my points in the previous post almost silly; beyond silly.
I clearly remember seeing "Smith's Dream" for the first time when I was 15 or so, and the terrible fear and dread at the idea of an invading force taking over the country. This is, I imagine, the on-going experience of Tuhoe in relation to the NZ State.
My uncle taught me how to shoot, using leaves on a near-by lake for target practice. If I had a gun, I would probably consider how I might use it in defense of my home and family should we be attacked. Does that make me a terrorist?
From what I have seen, and some of it has been at first hand, Tuhoe philosophy really is peaceful and constructive. Many of the leaders don't even smoke or drink. They walk a very precarious path with utmost sincerity and responsibility. It is the New Zealand state that brings violence, destruction and terror to their door, not the other way around.
-
I would agree with you, Sara, apart from one thing. My colleague saw some of the police video evidence during a bail application, and came out saying the accused were in real trouble (he actually said 'they're fucked", but you get the point.) And if you come from this position, the whole house of cards starts to come down, and the police actions start to look justified.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.