"The Terrorism Files"

888 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 31 32 33 34 35 36 Newer→ Last

  • InternationalObserver,

    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?>

    Since Jun 2007 • 909 posts Report Reply

  • InternationalObserver,

    guns blazing

    er ... maybe 'boots and all' would have been a better turn of phrase ...

    Since Jun 2007 • 909 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    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.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 19116 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    I don't know if my posts asking about the document are altogether appropriate ether. Russell, I wouldn't be offended if you deleted them ether.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2807 posts Report Reply

  • rodgerd,

    Perhaps we could also have a word of condemnation for them too.

    You've offered plenty of opportunities for people to condemn those who are happy to kill random civilians for fun and profit and I don't think you're going to make any more progress this time than you have in the past. Some of PA's denizens are, sadly, wedded to the idea that it's OK. or, at the very least, unable to condemn murder when it's by people they see as politically sympathetic.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 512 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Hosking,

    Sign of the times:

    A notice outside a cafe in Courtenay Place: 'Head Chef Wanted. Tuhoe an advantage.'

    South Roseneath • Since Nov 2006 • 805 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    Some of PA's denizens are, sadly, wedded to the idea that it's OK. or, at the very least, unable to condemn murder when it's by people they see as politically sympathetic.

    Excuse me? I haven't seen anything on these pages that indicates that anyone of us would not condemn murder.

    It is exactly that kind of bullshit escalation that gets us into more and more trouble.

    I am unable to condemn individuals or a group or an Iwi, based on out-of-context third hand evidence that was, in the first place, acquired, editted and leaked by a party that had just committed very real ATROCITIES against innocent civilians and needs to cover its very ugly rear end.

    For clarity I mean:

    1. Accepting these transcripts at face value is like looking at a photograph and believing it is reality.

    2. Atrocity: "act of extreme wickedness or evil" (OED). Separating a 12 year old child from her people and putting a gun against her head is extreme wickedness. Separating a 15 year old girl from her people and a male police officer conducting a "cavity search" is extreme wickedness. (I don't actually believe in evil).

    3. The police - individual leaders and collective entity - handled this badly by mounting the operation in the manner they did - there is nothing much new about that - dawn raids etc - and they should be held appropriately accountable. But the acts of extreme wickedness that came about in the process were perpetrated by individual police officers who should, right now, be facing criminal charges. This is the ugly rear-end that, instead, the police are covering for.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    I am unable to condemn individuals or a group or an Iwi, based on out-of-context third hand evidence

    of CONVERSATIONS - not actions -

    that was, in the first place, acquired, editted and leaked

    etc

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    It begins, I think, with the act of recognition. Recognition that it was we who did the dispossessing. We took the traditional lands and smashed the traditional way of life. We brought the disasters. We took the children from their mothers. We practised discrimination and exclusion.

    It was our ignorance and our prejudice. And our failure to imagine these things being done to us. We failed to make the most basic human response and enter into their hearts and minds. We failed to ask - how would I feel if this were done to me?

    As a consequence, we failed to see that what we were doing degraded all of us.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • InternationalObserver,

    Separating a 15 year old girl from her people and a male police officer conducting a "cavity search" is extreme wickedness.

    Eh?

    I googled "15 year old girl cavity search" and came up with nothing. Got any more info on this? A link?

    I'm also skeptical that the Police would

    Separat[e] a 12 year old child from her people and [put] a gun against her head

    Are you suggesting they put a gun to her head? Or were they using her as a tri-pod/gun-mount?

    Since Jun 2007 • 909 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    The National Radio interview with the 12 year old (who ordered to her knees with a GUN TO HER HEAD, in her pajamas, on the footpath of a busy road around the corner her house, which she and her mother, grandma and aunt, were removed from at dawn; who had earlier been taken around the corner of the house, alone, by a police officer with a gun, to be questioned, despite the women complaining that this was not allowed... etc etc) is in a link on one of the earlier pages of this thread.

    The "cavity search" complaint was forwarded to Peter Williams' team, and was referred to as an "intimate body search of a 15 year old female" either in the Herald or on TV news a few weeks ago.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    was (line one after "who")

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    Someone complaining to a lawyer of action x, is just as third hand and untested, if not more so, than police citing action y in an application for a search warrant.

    The burden of proof, fortunately for the people charged, is on the accuser to prove their guilt, not for the accused to prove their innocence. I think we should be consistent in applying that rule to accused we don't happen to personally identify with.

    Also, there's a world of difference between a pat-down over clothes, a strip search and a cavity search, all of which could be described as intimate.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 819 posts Report Reply

  • B Jones,

    TV3 and the Herald have the intimate search complaint.

    They describe a complaint of women being intimately searched, with no reference as to who did the searching or their age. The 17 year old daughter of Tame Iti's partner was also searched "in full view of everyone" , but nothing about what sort of a search that was. I'd be absolutely staggered if that was any sort of public strip search, not to mention first in line to call for blood if that were the case. I just don't see it from the reporting, though.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 819 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    Firstly, I think there is a world of difference between a real child reporting an act that she alleges she experienced at the hands of another real person during a real raid during which many other alleged acts of misconduct (to put it mildly) occurred, and possible interpretations and constructions of surveillance-based "evidence" of alleged plans to carry out illegal acts in the future. A very REAL difference.

    Secondly, I am not inclined to doubt complaints of police misconduct in this context. Yes, like you I am making a judgment call based on my experiences and beliefs. It is clear from many many past incidents that some police are sometimes far from perfect, and that in heated circumstances really nasty things go down. It is the responsibility of the Police to plan operations so as not to inflame situations, to cure the culture of misuse of power, and to train and support officers sufficiently so that these things don't occur. When they do occur, the Police should hold their own accountable (especially at the top of the hierarchy).

    No we don't know exactly what happened on any of the sides. We weigh the evidence and make our best guesses. I just think my guess is more realistic than yours.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    of CONVERSATIONS - not actions -

    And, BTW, a film, The Conversation should be required viewing here. The phrase, "He'd kill us if he had the chance", is utterly crucial in the plot, and it's not even a punctuation mark ("Eats, shoots and leaves), but something even more subtle that makes all the difference. Recommended. Have a look and think about it.

    The really creepy thing is that trial by media/leak can really screw things up, even when "all" of the "facts" are known. Having taught for a few years a paper on the psychology of perception and having been interested in the topic for years, I am deeply suspicious of even the most "incontovertible" evidence, especially that gleaned from surveilance and then transcribed - and I don't even have to be a poststructuralist (even if I've been told that it comes far too naturally). I agree with RB's recent post that we need a proper enquiry if a fair trial is no longer possible, the supposed evidence needs to be examined, taken apart and scrutinised in detail.

    And somehow, I'm too cynical to think that that will happen now - too may inquiries have been too carefully limited in their terms of reference. Since I'm in the mood, here's an old Chinese proverb: "Who defines the terms wins the argument". That's why we are supposed to have courts and cross-examination and suppression of evidence.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • steven crawford,

    Someone complaining to a lawyer of action x, is just as third hand and untested, if not more so, than police citing action y in an application for a search warrant.

    If action x is in regard to the 12 year old girl, it actually consists of several people (adults and the 12 year old making actual first hand statements on National radio. If action x, again a direct statement from the complainant this time on National television (I didn't hear anything about cavity searching).

    As for the Police citing y. What third hand evidence! It doesn't actually exist.

    How about this: " I have it on good authority that any leaked information relating to the secret police affidavit is actually the work of Ivan Gleek"

    The actual pdf is here it has been coded for legal reasons. if you read between the lines, it's posable to make a really good morel judgment.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 2807 posts Report Reply

  • Sara Noble,

    I haven't heard anything about a public strip search, what I understand of this complaint is that the 15 year old was taken into a room on her own and a cavity search was conducted by a male officer without a female officer present. I'm sorry but, as usual, the sources and details are subjudice. But I look forward to seeing you at the head of the queue when Peter Williams report is made public and IF the complaint is upheld. Sadly, if things are no better since, for instance, "the clowns" case, it will be in 10 years and the award to the claimants won't even cover their legal costs.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2007 • 127 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    Sorry to be a bore, but to go on...

    I used as a favourite example the shooting down of an Iranian airliner by the USS Vincennes and the shooting down of KAL 007 by the Soviet air force. In both cases, those in charge of the weapons had been trained only to deal with real targets, not civilians (this was in the depths of the Cold War, remember)... and so that's what they saw. In the case of the Iranian airliner, the Aegis-equipped cruiser crews were repreatedly drilled in dealing with armed attack and on a radar screen, an armed F-14 makes as big a blip as an Airbus (the basic principle of stealth is that actual size and radar image are not the same thing) while in the case of the Soviets, the US had been sending RC-135 electronic recon planes into Soviet airpsace for years (the RC-135 is based on the Boeing 707, a plane not radically dissimilar to a 747 on radar). People saw what they expected to see, and reacted accordingly.

    Those are clear examples, but psychologist have plenty of others to refer to. I suggest Rita Carter's Consciousness as an acsessible guide.

    My own impression is that the expectation of terrorism was a significant factor in the whole sorry saga and that skewed the tactics and the subsequent justification.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Finn Higgins,

    It is exactly that kind of bullshit escalation that gets us into more and more trouble.

    You mean the kind of bullshit escalation that reads "Cavity search" when "intimate body search" is printed, and translates "alleged actions" into fact when they're based on individual statements while translating them into fiction when they're based on 150+ pages of extremely detailed evidence and argument?

    Wellington • Since Apr 2007 • 209 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    And then there's the Stanford Prison Experiment...

    Juvenal really had a point.

    Those in power, whether they are right or wrong, must be open to scrutiny, and this should be a regular, even constitutional process. The tendency to dehumanise the supposed "other" so that 12-year-olds have guns pointed at their heads is sadly a human reflex and it's not a bleeding-heart liberal response to demand checks and balances - it's simply based on a (sorrowing) awareness of human nature.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

  • Craig Ranapia,

    Secondly, I am not inclined to doubt complaints of police misconduct in this context.

    With all due (and sincere) respect to everyone concerned, I don't regard everything I hear on National Radio as holy writ, and perhaps it might be time to take a deep breath and remember everyone accused of an offense - even vile, disgusting piggy policemen - should be entitled to the presumption of innocence and due process. Could it be possible, Sara, that you're making one or two inflammatory assumptions of your own?

    North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12073 posts Report Reply

  • rodgerd,

    Excuse me? I haven't seen anything on these pages that indicates that anyone of us would not condemn murder.

    Russell has posed, more than once, questions asking whether people would condemn the plans being discussed if they were accurate. I have yet to see responses from the people he's posed them to that weren't big fat circumlocutions or just ignoring them.

    It is exactly that kind of bullshit escalation that gets us into more and more trouble.

    Look in the mirror, then. I'm not the one swearing at people while making things up about cavity searches and pronouncements such as:

    Secondly, I am not inclined to doubt complaints of police misconduct in this context.

    Presumption of innocence, huh? I guess it applies only to some.

    Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 512 posts Report Reply

  • johnno,

    What Finn said. Sara, have you read the whole affadavit?

    I had a lot of sympathy for Tuhoe Lambert, especially when I saw his whanau's story on 60 Minutes. That changed after I read the police document, and I started to think that he should take a whole lot of responsibility for what happened to his 12 year old moko.

    wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 108 posts Report Reply

  • Kracklite,

    I have yet to see responses from the people he's posed them to that weren't big fat circumlocutions or just ignoring them.

    Those accused and their associates, alas, have to keep their traps shut because what they say can prejudice their trials. That's a nontrivial point to them. Unlike the Dompost, the consequences for them are real and substantial considering their resources.

    Frankly, that line recalls "You're with us or against us" far too well.

    The Library of Babel • Since Nov 2007 • 981 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 31 32 33 34 35 36 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.