"The Terrorism Files"
850 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 34 Newer→ Last
-
Interesting take from Libby Hakaraia on the march.
Summary: concerned about the look of the thing too. But not everyone was from Tuhoe; not everyone there was there for the same reason.
"You're seeing a whole lot of different agendas being vented on a protest like this."
-
...does the evidence that we have read really indicate a likely terrorist attack? As opposed to the idol boasts of some very silly and nasty people?
It would be easy to paint it as empty boasting or talking BS...
But as said earlier by others.... you have to add it to what WAS already known about the people (alegedly) saying those things.
1) these people are self-described "activists"... they already have a history of taking action to publicize / support their beliefs. They are people already shown to do what they say. They are less likely thanthe "normal public" to just be mouthing off. Many many people talk about how upset they are about something and then do nothing but complain to their friends and stew helplessly. But activists have already shown they have more balls/gumption/conviction than that. Activist are usually proud of this fact. They are actually taking a stand, doing something about it. Whether it be marching with a placard, minor civil dissobediance, breaking into a chicken farm, or writing to MP's... they've done something. Which is more than most.
2) They had been playing with guns in "military style" training exercises.
Those two facts together suggest, not that its proof of a terrorist plan.... but that its more likely than if the same words were just said by some random plonkers in the pub. And, if not actually more likely in reality, at least its reasonable that the Police might think so?
Now, what level of likelyhood do you want the police to wait for before doing anything? I think everyone agrees that waiting til after a terrorist action, just to be 100% sure, is untenable, right? -
"They had been playing with guns in "military style" training exercises.
Those two facts together..."
The second is not a fact. It is an allegation which is yet to be proven, and may well not be proven for some, perhaps most of the defendants.
-
Here some people were arrested using legally obtained warrants supported by 150 pages of evidence
Most of which is "comical".
there have been no allegations of beatings
Except Jamie Lockett's hospitalisation.
they've had prompt access to their lawyers
Except when they haven't.
Their innocence or guilt is yet to be decided, so you can't claim that twelve of them have been proven to have acted in a manner undeserving of a month of jail just yet. That's simply an unknown
I <b>can</b> claim that they shouldn't have been locked up for a month before the trial, though. People should not be punished for unknowns.
You're suggesting that this is the same thing as the military extra-judicial detainment of prisoners captured in Iraq and Afghanistan?
No, nobody is suggesting that; Guantanamo is clearly much worse. But there's a spectrum between "the same thing" and "totally dissimilar".
The people arrested here spent about as much time in jail as Paris Hilton
The difference being that she didn't serve her time till after she'd been tried and sentenced.
-
these people are self-described "activists"... they already have a history of taking action to publicize / support their beliefs. They are people already shown to do what they say.
Some of them are activists, and we don't know to what extent the published quotes overlap with that subgroup, if at all. And they have a history of taking <b>peaceful</b> action and saying they oppose the initiation of violence.
-
The second is not a fact. It is an allegation which is yet to be proven, and may well not be proven for some, perhaps most of the defendants.
Sorry for my loose use of language.
What the police believe are facts, presumably after video surveylance?
We are talking about whether the Police's actions were reasonable... so you have to base it on what (we presume) the Police had in their brains.... not on what may or may-not be reality.
-
To be fair, [Minto] is now calling for a public inquiry with full disclosure.
I'm not sure that's going to work out so well for him; I think he's basically a good guy and for obvious historical reasons he simply can't bring himself to believe that the police might be right and his fellow activists might turn out to be dangerously deluded liars.
-
Most of which is "comical".
It wasn't comical enough to get everybody bailed before the possibility of its use in court was struck down by the SG. Who in turn described it as "disturbing".
Except Jamie Lockett's hospitalisation.
Which was done by another prisoner. Not good, clearly, but far from official torture or deliberate mistreatment.
Except when they haven't.
That's still far, far better than you'd expect were you actually in a situation comparable with Guantanamo Bay. Again, not ideal - but not extrajudicial detention in a legal black hole off the shores of the country.
I can claim that they shouldn't have been locked up for a month before the trial, though. People should not be punished for unknowns.
It was not punishment, it was a denial of bail. That is a choice the court makes based on evidence, not a whim of the police. It is also part of NZ's normal, democratically-decided legal processes. Don't like it? Come up with a better suggestion for a system to protect the public. I had my house burgled a few years ago by a guy who was due in court the next day on over 140 outstanding charges. Are you suggesting that bail should be automatic for all people arrested? Or that there should be a better system for deciding who gets it? What's your better system? Have you had it legally reviewed? Campaigned for it? You're quite able, in NZ.
No, nobody is suggesting that; Guantanamo is clearly much worse. But there's a spectrum between "the same thing" and "totally dissimilar".
That's correct, and this particular case falls under "totally dissimilar". If you examine the reasons why people have been protesting and arguing against Guantanamo Bay and then compare them to this case I doubt any one of the substantial points against Guantanamo could be considered to directly apply. The only way you can get even any of them to look moderately close is by either twisting and exaggerating the happenings in NZ or completely diminishing the severity of the plight of those held in Guantanamo Bay.
The difference being that she didn't serve her time till after she'd been tried and sentenced.
Fair enough. But "A month in a prison with access to legal representation under the normal rules of your country" is a much better description of what happened here than "Five years in a legal twilight with no access to due process, held off-shore by a country you weren't arrested in after being picked up by mercenaries". Their case is certainly not the same as Paris Hilton, but their experience and treatment by the legal system is about as atypical as hers.
-
Most of which is "comical".
Thankfully, bail hearings are under the purview of a judge, rather than, y'know, supporters of the accused. Presumably the judge is capable of making his own decisions having heard submissions from both sides.
they've had prompt access to their lawyers
Except when they haven't.
I don't know why people haven't had proper access to lawyers, that's not good enough. But some people in Guantanamo haven't seen any lawyers, and they've been waiting 5 years. They have no prospect of seeing one soon. Let's keep things in perspective.
I can claim that they shouldn't have been locked up for a month before the trial, though. People should not be punished for unknowns.
No doubt you have a history of railing against the bail system, which does this all the time for 'garden variety' criminals, and you're not just starting this campaign in the past month or so.
I don't know what was said in the initial bail hearings, but presumably both sides got to have a say, and the judge made a decision. It's a shocking comparison with Guantanamo, where not only was there not a defense lawyer, but no judge, and indeed, no hearing.
Bail is not a perfect system for 'innocent until proven guilty', but then again, it seems like a sensible system for 'should not be released back into the community until they've had their court case'. It's simply an attempt to balance people's civil liberties with public safety and integrity of the legal process. Judges take it quite seriously, and I note one of them initially was going to grant bail, and the police had to cough up more evidence to convince him/her to refuse it.
Maybe bail shouldn't have been denied to these people, I have no idea. But broad statements about how people shouldn't be locked up just because they're not yet proven guilty? That would have released some real sickos out onto the streets in the past 50 years. Lets keep our eye on the ball shall we?
Your argument should be "these people were not a risk and should have been released on bail", and that really comes down to whatever happened at the hearing.
there have been no allegations of beatings
Except Jamie Lockett's hospitalisation.
Wasn't Lockett beaten up while in custody, by fellow prisoners? How is that like Guantanamo, where prisoners have been beaten up by interrogators and soldiers? Has Commissioner Broad been heading down to the police cells with a couple of phone books and administering a bit of a beating that we don't know about?
-
I'm not sure that's going to work out so well for him; I think he's basically a good guy and for obvious historical reasons he simply can't bring himself to believe that the police might be right and his fellow activists might turn out to be dangerously deluded liars.
Danyly, Moana Jackson is on record saying the same thing. And he's on the defence legal team.
-
Dammit Finn, we need to coordinate these posts better. Some sorta txt messaging system should do it.
-
Fletcher B :"It would be easy to paint it as empty boasting or talking BS..."
How about Occam's razor often described as - The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Again there is no ground swell to take down the state - just unlock the gate.
-
It wasn't comical enough to get everybody bailed before the possibility of its use in court was struck down by the SG.
It should have, for most of them. That's a failure of the courts.
According to Scoop, "it would be reasonable to suspect that two of the individuals are responsible for a large chunk of the "disturbing" things that have been reported" - that's just <b>two</b> out of the 17 who gave some indication of possibly becoming a threat at some point in the future, though in all probability wouldn't have actually done anything in the absence of any wider support even if they'd really wanted to.
-
How about Occam's razor often described as - The simplest explanation is usually the best.
Isn't the simplest explanation for someone saying they're going to kill a prime minister while on their way to a training camp where people fired weapons, that they were planning to do it?
-
Talking shit & running around the bush with guns is a strong part of Kiwi kultchur.
No-one in living memory has tried to kill the PM etc or over throw the state by acts of violence.
Which one is closest to past NZ events?
-
Isn't the simplest explanation for someone saying they're going to kill a prime minister while on their way to a training camp where people fired weapons, that they were planning to do it?
Perhaps, though it would be more likely if they were on their way to where the prime minister actually was. However, nobody has said they are going to kill a prime minister - the quote said somebody should, which is quite different.
No doubt you have a history of railing against the bail system, which does this all the time for 'garden variety' criminals
Refusing bail is justified in some cases, but not many, and not this one (at least for the majority). According to the statistics I could find, only 3.3% of defendants are remanded in custody throughout the case, and
that doesn't include cases which never get to court. -
Refusing bail is justified in some cases, but not many, and not this one (at least for the majority).
You keep asserting this, but just saying it doesn't make it true. Do you have access to all the evidence that was presented at those hearings? We've heard some of it, and it sounds pretty damning that people would even keep talking to people saying this kind of stuff, let alone hang out and fire guns with them.
I'm sure there are a small number of people (2-5 sounds reasonable) who might qualify for the "totally fucking crazy" label, but that doesn't mean that being less than totally crazy should qualify people for immediate release while charges are still being prepared.
-
No doubt you have a history of railing against the bail system, which does this all the time for 'garden variety' criminals, and you're not just starting this campaign in the past month or so.
What are you implying here, Kyle? Are you saying you need to form all of your beliefs, opinions, and strategies at a certain stage in your life and then never deviate them? Or is it that you need to have a proven track record of railing against something before you can state an opinion on it? Or is it something else entirely that I've missed?
-
No-one in living memory has tried to kill the PM etc or over throw the state by acts of violence.
No one had ever hijacked four passenger jets and flown them into buildings killing thousands of people either.
Anti-terrorism isn't about "have these people done this before and are therefore likely to do it again", it's about "what might these people?"
Perhaps, though it would be more likely if they were on their way to where the prime minister actually was. However, nobody has said they are going to kill a prime minister - the quote said somebody should, which is quite different.
That doesn't change the fact that occam's razor appears to be on the other side from you. You need to discard that argument.
Refusing bail is justified in some cases, but not many, and not this one (at least for the majority). According to the statistics I could find, only 3.3% of defendants are remanded in custody throughout the case, and that doesn't include cases which never get to court.
That's all fine, I don't disagree. It's the argument that no one who is yet to be found guilty should be denied bail. Which would let the serial rapists and violent P addicts out on the streets. That's whacked.
-
What are you implying here, Kyle? Are you saying you need to form all of your beliefs, opinions, and strategies at a certain stage in your life and then never deviate them? Or is it that you need to have a proven track record of railing against something before you can state an opinion on it? Or is it something else entirely that I've missed?
I was just wondering if the poster had had this belief that bail should be given universally for a while, or if they'd just discovered it in the past month. 'Cause it looked like a plan for bail reform which they'd found in the back of a weetbix packet. There's been thousands of criminals denied bail over the years for very good reasons. If you're making an argument for everyone being free from jail until they're convicted, then I hope your system works for them as well as the peace/environment/sovereignty etc activists that are this month's story.
-
What's pompous about suggesting that screaming directly in somebody's face is actually quite intimidating? Fuck all, that's what, it's just stating the obvious.t
Offering yourself as some kind of don't-frighten-the-chooks events management consultant comes across as playing Colonel Blimp on stilts. Just stating the obvious to all but the terminally self-important.
-
Kyle: actually, one of the consequences of the last few weeks is that I have learned how shitty the bail/remand system is, and how difficult it is for families to find let alone help prisoners awaiting bail. I hope that some renewed attention for those problems is something good that can come out of this mess.
-
That doesn't change the fact that occam's razor appears to be on the other side from you. You need to discard that argument.
As far as I'm aware, occam's razor is on my side; in the absence of any actual planning, the simplest explanation for a statement that the prime minister should be killed is that it's no more of a genuine threat than all the other similar statements being made in private conversations between ordinary people all the time.
It's the argument that no one who is yet to be found guilty should be denied bail.
Who's making that argument? I've only said the majority of these 17 should have been bailed straight away, based on what I know of the people involved and the evidence reported to date, and that bail shouldn't be denied without very good reason.
-
Offering yourself as some kind of don't-frighten-the-chooks events management consultant comes across as playing Colonel Blimp on stilts. Just stating the obvious to all but the terminally self-important.
Well, if you could indicate me offering myself as such that might be relevant. Instead I was doing something you seem to have a bit of difficulty with: discussing issues rather than being insulting. Would you care to argue a point in my post that you took issue with rather than just repeatedly being a dick?
-
Gotta agree, Joe. We've been sharing sharply conflicting opinions in this thread without being abusive, but that was edging towards the line a bit. And I'm sure Finn will be happy to dial it back if you do.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.