Hard News by Russell Brown

Read Post

Hard News: Te Qaeda and the God Squad

960 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 Newer→ Last

  • stephen clover,

    be very careful not to wake a sleeping giant because middle NZer's might just bite back.

    Heh, I love this... what's the name of that range of hills in eastern Hawkes Bay -- of which Te Mata Peak is part -- which resembles and is supposedly in myth/legend a sleeping giant?

    I love the idea of this dude waking up, striding up the East Coast and inland to the Uruweras and having a bit of biffo with the "terrorists".

    Ok, I'm being a bit fanciful.. forgive me..

    wgtn • Since Sep 2007 • 268 posts Report Reply

  • Gabor Toth,

    Bart wrote...

    IF someone has been playing with napalm, they should go to jail....IF such people are playing around in the bush then I want our police to intervene with as heavy a hand as they feel appropriate

    I had a science teacher who taught us how to make napalm during a chemistry lesson back in the early 80s. I also had a social studies teacher (a WWII veteran IIRC) who took us into the Town Belt and taught us how to throw hand-grenades properly using pine cones (it was a thoroughly entertaining afternoon...).
    I think they both might have passed away since, so sorry Bart, I don't think you can dob them in...

    Wellington • Since Dec 2006 • 112 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    I bloody hope not, but doesn't crap like "if these mugs don't wont to be part of the normal NZ society then they get whatever the police see as been fit" ...

    Oh God, sorry. I was under the mistaken impression that the Herald had done the sensible thing and not run a Your Views on this. Arrrgggh ...

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17939 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Goodness.

    With a side of Oy and Vey. Time to step away from the computer and go for a nice, long mentally detoxifying walk.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11614 posts Report Reply

  • stephen clover,

    we have the right to bear arms

    Do we actually have the right to bear arms? I can never keep up with what is law here in NZ and what my rights are as an American citizen by extension via popular media.

    What about defending ourselves?

    I was harping on about Sleeping Dogs before, but now this is all starting to getting quite Bad Blood-ish.

    wgtn • Since Sep 2007 • 268 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    loving that social media.

    like having talkback radio transcribed, real time.

    i have a serious question for the group.

    "where in the hell do these people come from?"

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2018 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Fitzgerald,

    Police concern is a long way from anti-Terrorism laws.

    To the best of my knowledge Save Happy Valleys actions were terrorism, although to date not charged as such.
    Under this terrorism law only trade unions are exempt from being classed as terrorists when they act against say, solid energy.

    Since May 2007 • 631 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Oh God, sorry. I was under the mistaken impression that the Herald had done the sensible thing and not run a Your Views on this. Arrrgggh ...

    You sweet, silly optimistic boy - go stand in the corner and sing (What's So Funny 'Bout) Peace, Love and Understanding ten times.

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 11614 posts Report Reply

  • Danyl Mclauchlan,

    Neil, the bathroom's free, unlike the country under the current Thatcherite junta

    Lockett sounds like a pretty crazy guy and I'm glad the police are taking an interest in his activities - but one could say the same about d4j who also appears to have attracted his fair share of police curiosity over the years. I don't imagine d4j to be a 'terrorist threat' and I also have trouble imagining Lockett to be much of a danger to the ongoing stability of the state.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 894 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Russel, it is also possible that a bunch of police informers cooked up the whole thing.

    Anything's possible, although it's hard to see how your putative police informers managed to forge the electronic communications the police are beginning to present in court, or somehow conjured the camo manoeuvres for which the Herald has three direct sources this morning.

    A few beers, a few rash statements, informer gets a hold of a few rusty guns while the cops watch every move.
    Just as likely ...

    No it isn't. What's looking much more likely is that a few crazy people have got way out of their depth.

    and since anyone who was really involved would be keeping quiet (as they should) all bomber would have is gossip.

    The story on Indymedia is that Bomber talked to some younger activists who were clearly a bit loose-lipped. If he's right, then he's also right that these few people have done catastrophic damage to the causes they espouse. But feel free to come up with another theory to avoid the most obvious conclusion.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 17939 posts Report Reply

  • Bob Munro,

    yeah... but is that 'terrorism' or 'a crime'?
    i think that's the key issue behind these arrests. are the police dealing with terrorists, or (lunatic) criminals?
    now, let's say that fcking up someone's lawn is terrorism (which you aren't), wouldn't it be employed more often?
    osama "i have a plan to strike fear into the heart of america"
    no.2 "yes of wise master, what will we need?"
    osama "first, we need the name of the gardener at the white house, and a rotary hoe..."

    Now I’m no expert so I’ll happily put my 10 cents into the debate like everyone else. On a continuum with Save Happy Valley Coalition at one end and Osama at the other you might find they both end up under the ‘terrorism’ banner I believe. This is because SHVC is prepared to disrupt the economic activity of an SOE. From my limited knowledge I believe that economic disruption of the Nations interests does qualify. Someone correct me please.

    The example that I’m aware of is the poisoning of milk from a dairy farm near Ashburton last year by a disgruntled employee which got into the larger milk collection and then had the potential to harm New Zealand’s reputation. The anti terror squad were involved in that investigation I understand.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 418 posts Report Reply

  • stephen clover,

    you might find they both end up under the ‘terrorism’ banner [...] from my limited knowledge I believe that economic disruption of the Nations interests does qualify [...] had the potential to harm New Zealand’s reputation. The anti terror squad were involved in that investigation

    If true then this is a disheartening de-valuation and corruption of the meaning of the word "terror" to something more along the lines of "commercial annoyance".

    wgtn • Since Sep 2007 • 268 posts Report Reply

  • Michael Fitzgerald,

    Sorry Russell I've got confused - which cause does Bomber have the inside running on?

    Since May 2007 • 631 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Morrison,

    Sorry Russell I've got confused - which cause does Bomber have the inside running on?

    bomber sounds quite convincing to me. His anguish over what possible harm some people may wind up doing to radical political groups seems heartfelt.

    even bomber gets to look moderate sometimes.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    This is because SHVC is prepared to disrupt the economic activity of an SOE. From my limited knowledge I believe that economic disruption of the Nations interests does qualify. Someone correct me please.

    According to whose definition? I vaguely recall some such wording being used in some sort of dodgy legislation, but I'd have though that the common definition of terrorism requires actual acts of violence against civilians, with the express aim of spreading terror through the general populace. Damage to property or "economic disruption" wouldn't count per se: illegal, sure, but hardly "terrorism".

    I may have missed something, but AFAIK the most extreme things that SHVC did was to damage or tie themselves to some rails. If that had been done in such a way that there was a danger of causing a derailment and potential harm to human beings, then that could be construed as terrorism. But (and my memory is a bit hazy on this), I though that any damage they did was made known to the train drivers, and while it disrupted the coal it didn't endanger anyone.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1037 posts Report Reply

  • Bob Munro,

    If true then this is a disheartening de-valuation and corruption of the meaning of the word "terror" to something more along the lines of "commercial annoyance".

    Sorry should read 'anti-terrorism squad'. Actually I don't know what they are actually called but 'they' were invoved in the investigation.

    Christchurch • Since Aug 2007 • 418 posts Report Reply

  • daleaway,

    "People can eventually get so deeply involved in and seduced by their own arguments and end up believing that they must act in a radical fashion or else.
    I wonder if that has gone on here."

    Quite right. Listening to your own voice to the exclusion of all others leads to folie de grandeur. Ask any All Black supporter.

    Since Jul 2007 • 178 posts Report Reply

  • David Cauchi,

    As far as Save Happy Valley goes, the relevant section of the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 is section 5(3)(c). It has to be disruption to economic activity that threatens human life.

    As far as these arrests go, the relevant section they could be charged under seems to be section 13.

    All our laws are online (not official versions but). Here are the relevant sections anyway:

    5 Terrorist act defined

    (1) An act is a terrorist act for the purposes of this Act if—

    (a) the act falls within subsection (2); or

    (b) the act is an act against a specified terrorism convention (as defined in section 4(1)); or

    (c) the act is a terrorist act in armed conflict (as defined in section 4(1)).

    (2) An act falls within this subsection if it is intended to cause, in any 1 or more countries, 1 or more of the outcomes specified in subsection (3), and is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause, and with the following intention:

    (a) to induce terror in a civilian population; or

    (b) to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.

    (3) The outcomes referred to in subsection (2) are—

    (a) the death of, or other serious bodily injury to, 1 or more persons (other than a person carrying out the act):

    (b) a serious risk to the health or safety of a population:

    (c) destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance, or major economic loss, or major environmental damage, if likely to result in 1 or more outcomes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d):

    (d) serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:

    (e) introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism, if likely to devastate the national economy of a country.

    (4) However, an act does not fall within subsection (2) if it occurs in a situation of armed conflict and is, at the time and in the place that it occurs, in accordance with rules of international law applicable to the conflict.

    (5) To avoid doubt, the fact that a person engages in any protest, advocacy, or dissent, or engages in any strike, lockout, or other industrial action, is not, by itself, a sufficient basis for inferring that the person—

    (a) is carrying out an act for a purpose, or with an intention, specified in subsection (2); or

    (b) intends to cause an outcome specified in subsection (3).


    13 Participating in terrorist groups

    (1) A person commits an offence who participates in a group or organisation for the purpose stated in subsection (2), knowing that the group or organisation is—

    (a) an entity that is for the time being designated under this Act as a terrorist entity; or

    (b) an entity that carries out, or participates in the carrying out of, 1 or more terrorist acts.

    (2) The purpose referred to in subsection (1) is to enhance the ability of any entity (being an entity of the kind referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b)) to carry out, or to participate in the carrying out of, 1 or more terrorist acts.

    (3) A person who commits an offence against subsection (1) is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

    Wellington • Since Jul 2007 • 121 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Well at least The Revolution is being televised.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2468 posts Report Reply

  • Neil Morrison,

    (b) to unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act.

    I was wondering what role Suppression Act could possibly play in this so that makes it clear. I thought that bringing in the term "terrorism" sort of clouds things a bit but using force to influence a govt I suppose fits.

    Since Nov 2006 • 932 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    Yeah, NZ is full of 'soccer mums', just like those all those NZ bureaucrats and politicians working in 'the Beltway'. Let's not use US cliches people ...

    Soccer mum is definitely part of the Enzed vernacular these days.

    The things that Bomber is hinting at coming out sounds very concerning.

    Since Nov 2006 • 6145 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    Here are the relevant sections anyway

    Thanks, David. That's a fairly labyrinthine piece of legislation, but it seems that the only definition of terrorism that doesn't involve the risk of death or bodily harm to human beings is "introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism, if likely to devastate the national economy of a country."

    So, releasing foot & mouth would count, and rightly so, since the resulting impact on our economy could indeed be seen as "devastating" to so many ordinary people that even if no-one actually starves to death, people would be justifiably terrified. Shaving a few percentage points off an SOE's profits is not in the same league.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1037 posts Report Reply

  • Che Tibby,

    Sorry should read 'anti-terrorism squad'. Actually I don't know what they are actually called but 'they' were invoved in the investigation.

    nothing i have read before has ever screamed 'bored cop' like an 'anti-terrorism' squad being involved in a milk poisoning incident...

    the back of an envelope • Since Nov 2006 • 2018 posts Report Reply

  • kowhai montgomery,

    Since when has "soccer mum" been a part of our vernacular? There is probably a similar demographic but we could at least find our own term for it! My best stab at it would be "women who find Judith Dobson compelling" but that might be a bit harsh, on soccer mums that is.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 481 posts Report Reply

  • Tom Beard,

    Oh, and BTW, does anyone else think that today's DomPost headline was seriously misleading? "Napalm blast", indeed! Anyone seeing that would be justifying in thinking that the stuff had actually been used on someone, rather than (allegedly) used in an exercise. To make matters worse, the accompanying map uses little explosion icons for each of the locations where the police acted, which would seem to imply a whole lot of "blasts" up and down the country. I supposed they'll argue they were just stars, but I'm sure they know what they're doing.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 1037 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 39 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.