Posts by Sonic
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
"s far as I can tell Broad never uttered the word "terrorist",
He just ordered raids based on the terrorism suppression act, how could people be so easily confused?
-
This is interesting from the "timeline"
"February 28: 12.32 pm Sunday Star-Times journalist phones a suspect saying the paper has an anonymous letter about guerrilla training in the Ureweras. Suspect denies it."Anyone know more about that?
-
Sorry Deborah
*blush*
-
Oh and if I may add
"It's highly unlikely the police would have used paid informants"
Really? they do it with every other crime. Why would they suddenly develop scruples around this?
Good question for a enterprising journo though.
"Commissioner, can you assure us that your informant was never paid for any information, or recieved any leniency for crimes they may have committed in return for information"?
-
"pretty damned close to being something very nasty"
As I said, is that it?
How many millions of bucks? how many police man hours? how many civil liberties thrown in the toilet? and all we have is "close to being nasty"?
Come on Russell.
-
" I don't approve of the standards of behavior you're willing to accept from people around you."
I'm devastated, you really don't approve of me?
I don't know anyone who does talk like that, but even if they did it is not a crime, If I my cross post from Kiwiblog.
If I sit in the pub with my friends and say wouldn’t it be great to rob the post office, and I think the best time would be 2.30 on a Thursday I’ve not commited any crime. If however I get the equipment together and arrange a date, then it is conspiracy to commit robbery.
No plan, no conspiracy.
-
"talking seriously"
Were they? thats the point.
You would expect that if this was "Serious" there would be planning going on, scouting of targets, preparation of explosives etc.
In this police leak there is not a mention of anything like that (if there was they would have it front and centre)
So all we have, as predicted, is some wild talk and playing soldiers on a hillside.
Not a good look but hardly "terrorism"
-
" can't imagine there were any paid informants"
Well that is police standard practice all over the world. In any lefty campaign you always get some new guy who shows up prattling on about using violence etc.
I had one who kept asking me "where are the real meetings, you know the innner core who are really organising things"
COPPER.
-
here we go
"During their investigations, police used sophisticated mobile phone eavesdropping technology and trained covert cameras on suspects' homes, a remote bush path and at vehicle tracks and camp training grounds.
They traced new suspects and gained information via computer sites, phone, bank and power records, Trade Me user profiles, passports and birth certificates, <b>as well as from an informant.</b>
Or this
"On August 16 this year, police intercepted a conversation between two suspects in a car. They discussed Mr Bush and speculation that he could visit New Zealand - and talked of using a sniper's rifle."
Who doesnt?
(only kidding coppers!)
-
I have to say I am distinctly unimpressed.
I'm also interested in what role police informers ( paid to infiltrate I assume) played in all of this. How many times did they instigate these conversations.
"I think we should kill John Key"
"I agree mate"
Ok round them up.