Wednesday, 14 November 2007

"Very disturbing activities" in the Dom

Your job for today is to read and digest the Dominion's publication of the transcripts of police surveillance that were used to obtain search warrants when police suspected terrorist plots were under way.

Feel free to comment as you're reading.

UPDATE 1: Short summary (partly pinched from Liberty Scott) of bugged conversations:
  • Threat to blow up John Key
  • Calls to kill police and evict non-Maori farmers;
  • Talk of using a sniper's rifle to assassinate US President Bush;
  • Making nail bombs and napalm;
  • How to throw Molotov cocktails;
  • Live ammunition training in ambush and withdrawal;
  • Interrogation training using loaded firearms pointed at trainees' heads;
  • Blowing up power stations, gas plants, Telecom, petrol stations and the Waihopai Spy Station;
  • "Kill Pakehas" for practice;
  • Wanting to emulate the IRA's terror campaign;
  • Using the "Al Qaeda manual" on terror tactics, and wanting to emulate Al Qaeda's horror.
UPDATE 2: Here's some talking points for you:
  • This is not the full evidence, simply short and selective summaries of the 156-page affidavit used to obtain search warrants in the Manukau District Court. Should the Dom have published these few excerpts? Should they have published more? Or placed the whole document on their website?
And, based on these few transcripts:
  • Were the police justified in their surveillance? In the level of force used in raids? Did they act too soon? Or two days too late?
  • Any evidence here to justify charges of police racism?
  • To what extent were these conversations just idle threats and throwaway remarks? How seriously should the police take "idle threats" when they're backed up with training, materiel and people motivated enough to carry them out?
  • Is it obvious enough now why the defendants, their lawyers and the Minto Mob did all they can to keep all the evidence suppressed?
  • "Peace" activists? If these were your "friends," would you be defending them?
  • "I have nothing to hide," said Tame Iti on returning home. Really?
  • How seriously should we take John Minto, Jane Kelsey, Nandor Tanczos et al who sat in court listening to these conversations being read out, and still insisted that there was nothing to answer for?
  • How seriously should we take journalists who sat in court listening to these conversations being read out, and who still treated Tame Iti as a hero, and the rest of the rabble with kid gloves?
I'm inclined to agree with Scott's conclusion, that there's a few people who need to front up:
Go on, it's time for Keith Locke to express his view, as a self proclaimed peace campaigner now that evidence is out. It is time for the Maori Party to decide what it believes in - do you oppose political violence? Do you oppose murder? Do you oppose mass vandalism to destroy the economy? Do you oppose violent evictions of farmers from their private property? Or is your support for peace about as skin deep as your support for freedom? At least Maia inadvertently may be quite true in her post, as a friend of the fascist left.

Oh, and when you see the hikoi supporting those who support terrorism, you might tell them what you think of them. Methinks those on the hikoi might go home and reflect on who their friends are.
UPDATE 3: Lindsay Perigo praises the Dom for growing a pair:
"The Dominion Post's decision to take the 'publish and be damned' approach I yesterday urged on TV3 toward the evidence on which the police anti-terror raids were based is vindicated by the evidence thus revealed," says SOLO Principal Lindsay Perigo. "So are the raids themselves. And TV3 are exposed yet again as the abject fellow-travellers of those whom I have so rightly been calling the 'wannabe terrorists.'
Read the whole press release here.


  1. no surprises, what do people think was going on? basketweaving hui

  2. Annette Sykes talked about burning forests and blowing up dams and the like some years ago - you know before much of the current crop of TV reporters started growing pubic hair.

    Does anyone remember this?

  3. The word "unconditional" springs to mind. I guess now we can test that theory...

    Also the indymedia website is down, what are the odds?

  4. Robert Winefield14 Nov 2007, 10:13:00

    Oh look, ex-Army were involved in training these pricks. So now you know why the US 2nd Amendement exists.

    When the army goes off the rails its curtains for liberty.

    I wonder if Helen is willing to look into purging the NZ Armed Forces of Iti's fellow travellers.

  5. there will always be a few bad eggs in any army Robert. Our army is loyal to our way of life.

  6. I believe you can go ahead and remove that question mark on the end of Te Qaeda, PC.

  7. Your article in the HOS probably encouraged this disclosure.

    I remember Sykes talk way back when Liberty Scott, and we have similar talk about assassinating one's political adversaries, or eliminating any group one dislikes on a daily basis in the blogosphere. A few months ago I complained to Google about a post by a NZ blogger with the lovely title "Why Liberals have to die".

    Sadly nobody takes the talk seriously -- we write off Sykes et al as harmless eccentrics and partisan loudmouthed yahoos. Until it comes to this.

  8. I think most rational Kiwis would not take this kind of talk too seriously. However, coupled with the fact they were training para military style in the bush with live amo, molotov cocktails, terrorist manuals and napalm bombs takes things a couple of steps beyond just "talking about it".

    I was discussing this with a friend today who was involved in the back end of protesting against the Vietnam War and his bunch of mates did say very similar things. They got raided by the police regularly but never thought of carrying through those threats.

    My friend just can't believe this. He said they are all dickheads and have put their cause back 100 years.

  9. Live ammunition training in ambush and withdrawal

    Nothing wrong with that on its own. If I'm ever in the US I fully intend to seek some training with Suarez International. Should that automatically make me a terrorism suspect?

    The rest of the list makes for scary reading though.

  10. Robert Winefield14 Nov 2007, 14:40:00

    Ah... Dunc,
    Suarez Intl. is a 'Gun Range' on private property. The government knows what's going on there - there is no secret.

    You are comparing apples with dog turds.

  11. Robert,

    So I should be required to inform the Government if I plan to participate or organise any such training, and failure to do so should brand me a terrorist?

    For what it's worth I don't think we disagree at all about the character of Iti and his mob, or the nature of what it was they were doing.

    All I'm saying is that the act of training to fight in and of itself shouldn't be classed as a terrorist act, regardless of whether or not the Government has been informed.

  12. DUNCAN: "All I'm saying is that the act of training to fight in and of itself shouldn't be classed as a terrorist act..."[Emphasis mine.]

    No one's suggesting that's the case "in and of itself."

    What's being discussed is:
    ...the act of training
    + the act of acquiring weapons and primitive explosives
    + the act of obtaining manuals on terror tactics
    + the act of recruiting trainees
    + the act of making some fairly concrete threats in private
    + the act of making some fairly outspoken protests in public ...

    So it's not the acts in isolation that's being looked at, it's several things taken together.

    Question is, what do they all add up to?

  13. PC,

    We're in agreement that Iti & his gang were training for terrorist actions, no question about that.

    Perhaps it's just my cynical side surfacing, but the Govt. could very easily take this as justification to pursue regulation (or an outright ban) on the type of training they were conducting. As we speak, there are moves afoot in the USA to do exactly that.

    I think that we should be quite explicit about the idea that training to fight with guns and other weapons should be perfectly legal in a free society.

  14. It adds up to terrorism by their own words!
    They said they want people to think Al Qaeda is here!
    They were going trough the motions of turning their words into deeds.
    Setting up to execute a campaign of terrorism!
    The police are to be congratulated.
    Will John Key wake up?
    Tame Iti is exposed as the worst of the lowest sort of racist like Hitler and Mugabe!
    We knew this years ago but maybe now a greater number of Kiwis will agree with us!

  15. "Will John Key wake up?"

    I doubt it, Tim - although I so wish he would. I don't think he thinks he has to.

    I fear he's relying on more & more voters to be so disgusted with the incumbents over the next 12 mo, that they'll vote for him in protest.

    It's incredibly frustrating that he's such a puss, when there's so much for him to utilise ...

  16. I was very relieved to see the article on Stuff this morning. It verified what I had thought would eventually come out. When the announcement came from the SG that no charges where to be laid the seeds of doubt was set in the minds of many. The question I now have is how could these wannabe terrorists "Te Queda" be so stupid! Using cellphones to communicate, verbalising their plans, etc. Dumb and Dumber! Makes you wonder if there are brains behind this who used them as 'useful' idiots to create a diversion? Sound like a conspiracy theorist now! Cheers Tim

  17. Duncan,

    I definately see your point, and you're right on the money.

    NZ minds are warped by the doublespeak of Labour. When the next Arms Act review comes along, you can bet there will be calls to increase government restriction on firearms licence holders - even though these terrorists don't have licences and were acting illegally under several existing laws.

    It's why the War on Drugs is still going on, and why people still haven't grasped that criminals ignore laws, making most firearms laws redundant.

  18. "So I should be required to inform the Government if I plan to participate or organise any such training, and failure to do so should brand me a terrorist?"

    Nope. But I would expect that the Police might check you and your colleges out first. That is part of their job description.

    (Most likely the blokes you will be training with will be cops anyhow.)

    Dunc, you have to face the fact that your desire to get long rifle gunfighting training isn't part and parcel of the average peaceful civilian lifestyle. It is the sort of thing that a would-be terrorist would want, and as such people who go after that training can expect that the police might stop you and ask you a few questions.

    Let me ask you this. Would you object if the police stopped someone walking around at night wearing dark clothing and carrying tools that could be used for B&E?

    The guy could just be a locksmith bundled up against the cold - but a policeman would be a fool not to check.

    Your desire falls under the same category. Deal with it.


  19. Robert Winefield14 Nov 2007, 21:25:00

    And let's remember Duncan that, according to the DomPost, this operation took a year to complete. And during those three years the 16 arrested were basically none the wiser.

    Let us also remember that the Police didn't call anyone a terrorist. That noise was - as Peter pointed out - the accused and their supporters.

    So go and get your gunfighting training. You probably will be looked at by the cops and once they establish that you're just another gun-junkie they'll leave you alone and go find something useful to do.

    And that, BTW, is how it is supposed to be.

  20. "We cannot defend our freedoms, which we cherish, by adopting fascist policies."

    "We do not want to concede awesome powers to our political leaders. We do not want to have a country and to live in a country where we can be declared guilty without a trial. We do not want to live in a society where the Prime Minister can declare someone to be persona non grata, without actually having to charge that person, and where there is no recourse, simply on the basis that the legislation would not get misused and simply on the basis that we have this awesome threat called terror."

    "Why oh why are we passing this bill?"

    Rodney Hide, Second Reading speech, Terrorism Suppression Amendment Bill

  21. Okay, obviously I didn't make myself clear. Back to fundamentals.

    I think that Iti & Co. were at least aspiring terrorists, and that it is proper for the Police to investigate their activities.

    Likewise, I'd be concerned if the Police heard about such a training organisation, and didn't at least check it out to determine its legitimacy. I'd have no problem whatsoever with that - and in fact would find it somewhat comforting to know that they're doing their job.

    That type of surveillance - if conducted according to the rule of law with warrants & suchlike - is entirely proper.

    However what bothers me is that many commentators are lumping the nature of the weapons training in with Iti's other unsavoury activities such as threatening (& planning to) kill.

    Craig D hit it on the head: it is likely that the Govt. will use this to call for further restrictions on law-abiding weapons owners & users.

  22. What do you make of this statement by Liz Gorden in the Press:
    It is interesting that the terms used were that the terrorism legislation is too difficult and complicated. We are left with the assumption that there was a terror-like crime but the law doesn't allow people to be prosecuted for it.
    That is entirely wrong. The only crimes in NZ are those defined in legislation. If it is not in the law it is not a crime Therefore, to say that these people may be terrorists but the law does not measure up is nonsensical.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.