THIS JUST IN
385 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 7 8 9 10 11 … 16 Newer→ Last
-
Kyle said:
I think that's how all warrants work isn't it? You get a warrant under the arms act, because you believe someone is breaching that act. You get a warrant under the crimes act, to pursue someone under the crimes act.
You're completely missing my point, Kyle. I'm saying that it seems to me that the Act was invoked for the purpose of getting wire-tapping warrants which they otherwise couldn't have obtained, rather than because the police already had evidence to suggest that these people were terrorists.
Getting a warrant under the TSA allows the authorities freedom to do stuff they otherwise aren't allowed to do. Therefore I reckon there should be more of a requirement to show SERIOUS probable cause in order to be granted a warrant under the TSA. Otherwise what's to stop the police invoking it all over the place?
Or what David said.
-
but as some one who is centre-left and spent a bit of time confronting Police in demos
I've been arrested twice - once protesting at a national party conference, once after getting sick of being pushed around by the NZ police at the CHOGM protests in 1995
Is this the new equivalent of saying "some of my best friends are Maori"?
-
Here are a couple of further points that should be stirred into the mix I think:
The SG said "almost" impossible to apply to domestic circumstances - So in fact he is saying it is possible, its just complicated and the standard is high - as it bloody well should be.
The requirements ( Paul Buchanan and the SG distilled them down to 5 coherent points fairly easily, so I really don't think it is that complicated or incoherent) seem to be: Ideology (shared political motivation) or the intention to force govt into something it wouldn't otherwise do; means - you gotta have the stuff and expertise to carry it out; a real plan - specific and coherent and WELL UNDERWAY; result will be loss of life or significant harm to people or harm to infrastructure that will result in harm to people. Frankly, I think this is a pretty good set of criteria - I certainly wouldn't want it to be less stringent. The 5th Point is that it has to be an identifiable terrorist "entity" - a set group of people who are together for the purpose. As PB said - if its one person out there alone who meet all the rest of the criteria s/he should probably be dealt with under the mental health act.
So I think the SG is either quite a-law-and-order-at-all-costs-nut, or he was really covering the Police's back.
The law was designed for the big international terrorist scenario and it should remain so (if at all).
And here is the bit that no one is saying but I think is actually self evident. It is the misuse of power of the state that creates "terrorism" (I hate that word) in the first place. Governments and politicians constantly create the chimera of threat to justify and strengthen their power: Peters - immigrants, Brash - Maori, Bush - Arabs, Greens - environmental catastrophe. It is fundamental.
Add to that economic and cultural dominance of the most powerful and keep ramping it up and you're going to pop out a few people who are disaffected enough to want to do some damage and don't feel they have a lot to loose.As PB said, the contradictions in NZ are not great enough for this to be occurring, but if the Police carry on as they have been and the Govt buys in we could be heading that way.
Finally, NM - the only person among the Urewera 17 that seems to be crazy is a Pakeha guy with so many bridges burnt behind him that everyone seems to know he is just trouble. If he had a gun - yep - I'd be scared. The ones that I know about (ie the Tuhoe lot) are not crazy and the guns are pretty much bona fide - certainly not to be used in anger. Maybe there is a feeling among some of them that they could be used in self defense if absolutely necessary but even that seems unlikely. The SG was so complementary about the cops mot shooting - but if these were such a determined, bad arse gang of terrorists, with the means intention to launch a terrorist attack, why didn't they come out guns blazing?
And by the way, you're not the Neil Morrison I know are you? You don't have to be if you don't want to (??!).
-
And now to agree with Kyle (cos he's having a bit of a hard time here at the mo') when he says:
And I believe there's an appropriate balance between doing that [using non-terrorism laws in NZ], and civil liberties. We've had conspiracy crimes for ages in NZ, I've never thought of it as controversial.
I'm sure there is an appropriate balance to be found.
What concerns me, as a US politics junkie who spends way too much time reading progressive US political blogs, is that we might be in danger of heading wayyy off balance into the "it's all different since 9/11" world of the US's systematic destruction of everything that that country supposedly stands for.
And I haven't felt like that about NZ thus far, ever. I think up until now (before the Urewera 17), we were doing pretty well at resting the US's global demands that everyone stand behind them in their "war on terra". Now I'm not so sure.
-
I would liker Kyle to consider this scenario:
My avant-garde art agents have spent 18 months gathering evidence that he has been organising secret necrophiliac training camps in the Southern Alps.
Unfortunately, the evidence we gathered was under the Necrophiliac Suppression Act, which requires evidence of actual tampering with dead bodies.
We can't establish that, so we're going with trespass on morgue charges, but we'll mention all this inadmissable evidence of necrophilia that we.ve gathered, but won't show you, anyway.
-
Likewise, I think it's touchingly naive to believe that the police are unaffected by institutional imperatives, or that they always get it right, or that they wouldn't do something for no reason. We have had abundant evidence over the years that senior officers can and do make all sorts of mistakes. It isn't demonising them to take that into account when assessing police statements.
I agree.
But also, there's some nutters out there who aren't police, and I suspect at least one or two of the arrested people aren't the most stable.
Given that, isn't the logical thing to take a neutral stance and say "I don't know who's in the wrong here?" (and follow that up with "I'd like to hear all the evidence so I can come to a fair conclusion"?)
-
"War on terra" is really funny.
-
webweaver, that pretty much is at the root of my concerns as well. The US and the UK have gone nuts.
And we all complacently think that NZ is different and sound and sensible, but you know, the US constitution and all their traditions and institutions haven't been enough to prevent them turning into a state where any abuse, from torture to detention without trial to massive warrant-less surveillance to simple harassment of photographers and artists and schoolkids and non-conformists, can be justified by the magic word "terrorism." If I have to become cranky and shrill and, god forbid, mad in order to keep these concerns alive, well so be it.
-
Please unsubstantiate the claim that you've been engaged in terrorist activity, not to mention child abuse and any other icky smear I can come up with.
Well presumably if you had evidence of that, you'd take it to the police and they would, or wouldn't act on it. I could then unsubstantiate it when they decide not to charge me, or when they do charge me, and I'm found innocent. Neither of those two things are going to happen in this situation..
What I am saying is (I think for the 4th or 5th time):
1. The police felt they had evidence of terrorist activity.
2. That evidence will not see the light of day.
3. We can't be sure if the reason that it won't see the light of day is just because the TSA is a bad law, or if their evidence was weak/wrong.
4. We are therefore left with not knowing what these people did, or didn't do.
5. I think that's a failing of the system. -
Kyle, conspiracy to murder is a criminal act, as is attempting such. Please stop constructing straw men.
Go back to the original post. They seemed to me to be arguing against arresting people until they had committed the actual act of murder. I found that strange, as it seemed logical to me to intervene beforehand if possible, saving people's lives. Hence my question.
No straw men here.
-
What Sara said. And Stephen
-
Yes Kyle, I see your point. There is a possibility there's been some grossly criminal behaviour that the cops can't prosecute.
However, that's only a possibility. I refer you again to the presumption of innocence, a point you seem to have trouble with.
-
Look, anyone can make up outrageous claims about what someone's been up to. These claims need to be substantiated before anyone takes them seriously.
We have not been presented with any evidence anyone has been up to anything like terrorist activity. All we have had is sensational leaks of supposed, but untested, evidence.
I, like other people, have suggested the police have a reason for leaking that. This is not unreasonable.
-
Kewl! I get to be in the cranky and shrill and, god forbid, mad group with Stephen (and quite a few others here, I think).
Do we have a logo? A badge? What's our mission statement? Do we have an official name? CaSagf__M__ Group is a bit long-winded... ;)
-
... isn't the logical thing to take a neutral stance and say "I don't know who's in the wrong here?" (and follow that up with "I'd like to hear all the evidence so I can come to a fair conclusion"?)
I'm really happy to posit counter-factuals at people whose default assumption is that if the police accuse you, you're probably guilty. That's just restoring the balance of the universe as far as I'm concerned.
Also, I'd like to hear all the evidence in a criminal trial, not drip-fed into the media by leakers trying to vindicate themselves.
Also, I'd like to step back from the "terrorism" label with all its baggage and try to see things for what they are, and what I currently see is not what I would normally associate with that word. Quite possibly bad, but not out of the normal range of crime in NZ, not what I would expect as the fruit of an $8m multi-agency year-long operation and certainly not worthy of ZOMG! TERRORZ!
In this area, for me a neutral position is not one where we take the police' word for granted. Neither do I have to withhold judgement on the accounts that we do have, eg of behaviour in Ruatoki vs behaviour at other raids.
Finally, we can all have our hunches about unknowable things. Neil can suspect that the accused will prove to be crazies with guns; I can suspect that the police have an interest in assembling a terror law test case. I can still exercise my (possibly lamentably wrong) judgement about what may happen because this is the interwob. In that sense I will never be neutral and don't aspire to be.
-
We can't establish that, so we're going with trespass on morgue charges, but we'll mention all this inadmissable evidence of necrophilia that we.ve gathered, but won't show you, anyway.
Well no doubt the defence will be looking into the argument that their clients cannot get a fair trial now that they've been tagged with the terrorist label.
It's my understanding however that the first evidence of the use of the TSA was when one of the people raided made a copy of the warrant available publicly. How is that the police's fault?
These things happen all the time in our legal system. Go talk to Peter Ellis about how fair he thought his trial was with months of child abuse talk waved around. This situation's not unique.
And I would have thought they would be able to get copies of the intercepts, under either the OIA, or Privacy Act, but perhaps Graeme can answer that one.
You seem to be assuming that the police lost the TSA charges deliberately. I'm not sure why Commissioner Broad, having gone through Rickards, would want to put another nail in his coffin.
I refer you again to the presumption of innocence, a point you seem to have trouble with.
Please tell me where I've said these people are guilty, as compared to the half dozen times I've said "these people may have done something, and we don't/won't know".
-
"unknowable" should be "currently unknown". Sorry.
-
I'm really happy to posit counter-factuals at people whose default assumption is that if the police accuse you, you're probably guilty.
Which I haven't said.
Also, I'd like to hear all the evidence in a criminal trial, not drip-fed into the media by leakers trying to vindicate themselves.
Well I don't think either side should be leaking. Stuff has come from the defence into the public as well.
I'd be curious to know where Campbell Live got the bundles of papers that was being waved around last night - I presume only the police side have that, so someone must have got active with a photocopier as a bit of retaliation for the flak that they'd been catching since the SG spoke.
I can still exercise my (possibly lamentably wrong) judgement about what may happen because this is the interwob. In that sense I will never be neutral and don't aspire to be.
That's fine, I'm not after hearts and minds here.
Just catching some flak for what seems to be me to be a reasonable position for me to hold. If you want to be over there, up to you, hopefully we see how it plays out.
-
It is the misuse of power of the state that creates "terrorism" (I hate that word) in the first place.
That's an interesting point Sara. I was trying to think of exceptions - terrorists totally unjustified by repression - but the only ones I could come up with off the top of my head were 'people go crazy with gun' which doesn't count as terror. Anyone?
Personally, not in favour of the terrorist acts, or the acts of the state that inspire it.
-
Kyle, I think you've explained yourself well and thoroughly and I understand that all you've done is lay out the issues in conspiracy-type charges. I know you haven't said anything that assumes guilt; I was thinking of other people.
I also agree that leaking goes both ways.
I do think that it's particularly concerning when members of the agency tasked with upholding the law deliberately and flagrantly break it. What's more, in a way that may actually hinder their objective of a successful prosecution. Again, I feel fine taking a more dim view of that than of an activist sharing a copy of the warrant they were served or a defence lawyer talking to a journo (and we don't know who that was, we just have to take the DomPosts's word for it).
-
Ha ha
It's my understanding however that the first evidence of the use of the TSA was when one of the people raided made a copy of the warrant available publicly. How is that the police's fault?
I don't know. Maybe by getting the warrant under the TSA in the first place?
Please tell me where I've said these people are guilty, as compared to the half dozen times I've said "these people may have done something, and we don't/won't know".
Dearie me. You haven't said these specific people are guilty of this specific crime, but you have been going on as if there is a specific terrorist threat in NZ. And
Well no doubt the defence will be looking into the argument that their clients cannot get a fair trial now that they've been tagged with the terrorist label.
doesn't exactly help your argument, does it?
But, you're right, you are catching some flak, mostly from me, for what is a reasonable (but wrong) position to hold. Isn't a free society great!?
-
I do think that it's particularly concerning when members of the agency tasked with upholding the law deliberately and flagrantly break it. What's more, in a way that may actually hinder their objective of a successful prosecution. Again, I feel fine taking a more dim view of that than of an activist sharing a copy of the warrant they were served or a defence lawyer talking to a journo (and we don't know who that was, we just have to take the DomPosts's word for it).
I'm with Stephen here. I can totally understand why an activist might say something like "holy sh*t!!! This warrant says I'm under suspicion of being a terrorist!!! I think I'm going to freak out a bit and tell someone..." - whereas the thought of some copper sidling up to a journo going "psst! over 'ere matey... I've got something very interesting to show you..." somehow seems very much more dodgy...
-
I think I'm going to freak out a bit
Ha ha, best understated quote ever.
-
I do think that it's particularly concerning when members of the agency tasked with upholding the law deliberately and flagrantly break it.
Yeah I agree with that. It'd be interesting to know if the leaking was done by some individual down the structure, or if it was a deliberate decision made by the police as an organisation. The first is probably just reality, when the police are catching flak. The second is of more concern from a moral standpoint I think.
-
I don't know. Maybe by getting the warrant under the TSA in the first place?
I'm going to say this again, because it's not getting through clearly.
If the police believe these people are involved in terrorist type activities - ie, preparing/planning for a terrorist action - then why wouldn't they use the TSA? That's the law that was supposedly written to deal with terrorist activities, it's not unreasonable to put it on the warrant if that's what you believe is going on.
I'm sure in hindsight the police might regret not just using the plain Crimes Act, however that's hindsight.
But that wasn't my point. My point was, it's my understanding that the media got the first official word that the police were investigating these people as 'terrorists', from the warrant supplied by one of the defendants. I'm sure it would have come out eventually, but it's a bit precious to complain about being labelled as a terrorist, when you gave the media the piece of paper which said that first.
Dearie me. You haven't said these specific people are guilty of this specific crime, but you have been going on as if there is a specific terrorist threat in NZ.
Oh god I'm a stuck record. I will say it again for the 7th time. We don't know. It may be there was a threat, it may be there wasn't. I don't know. You don't know. The material that would help us know, is probably never going to be made public.
The relevant question is "did the police have reason to believe that there was a terrorist threat in NZ". The answer - still - is, we don't know.
If people could read what I say rather than just assume that I think these people are all guilty, that would save me typing this for the 8th, 9th, 10th etc time.
doesn't exactly help your argument, does it?
That doesn't help what argument?
The labelling of criminals before they face trial happens all the time. David Bain's trial no doubt wasn't helped by the fact that people found the way he came across in the media as a bit creepy. Peter Ellis definitely didn't do well out of the whole being gay and accused of being a child molester. Personally I'm astounded that Michael Jackson wasn't found guilty..
This is entirely normal in our legal system and lots of other ones. It's not perfect, but juries are instructed to ignore it, and no doubt sometimes that works, and sometimes it doesn't.
But the police didn't name the law, I'm not even aware that they asked for the law - my understanding of why we have the TSA is to appease other countries, and to fulfil obligations under certain treaties/agreements that we've signed up to.
But again, if there's a law called the 'Terrorism Suppression Act', and you are the NZ police and you believe that there's some people out there who are going to commit a terrorist act, and you want to suppress them so that act doesn't happen, it's not unreasonable to put that law on the warrant and seek to use it to press charges against them. Yes that'll have perception issues for the defence, that's just life, and if people didn't want that to happen, then maybe they should have written any terrorism laws into the Crimes Act. If you want to bag anyone for that, bag parliament, they came up with the name TSA, and all the content underneath it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.