Key on ISIS

Written By: - Date published: 12:34 pm, November 5th, 2014 - 136 comments
Categories: iraq, war - Tags: , ,

Key’s much heralded speech on terrorism / ISIS was very much as expected. The Herald:

Key reveals 80 Kiwis linked to Islamic State

In a major speech on national security in Wellington this morning, Mr Key said agencies had a watch list of between 30 and 40 people who were “of concern in the foreign fighter context”.

“These are people in, or from New Zealand who are in various ways participating in extremist behaviour”. Some of the people on the watch list had travelled to join wars in the Middle East and had remained there. Others were supporters of the Islamic State and the Levant (ISIL) who had attempted to travel to Syria but had their passports cancelled. Others on the list were involved in funding terrorism, radicalising others or becoming radicalised themselves.

Mr Key said a further 30 to 40 individuals who were not on the watch list required further investigation.

Hard to see how any of that represents a threat to NZ. Certainly that nothing that requires the increased powers discussed in the tweets / reaction below.

Mr Key ruled out sending troops to the Middle East in a combat role.

New Zealand will instead send military planners to determine whether New Zealand can play a role in training local security forces.

If we must have role, then (credit where it is due) this is the right one. Good news that we are not sending combat troops.

Reaction:

https://twitter.com/barrysoper/status/529774135245668352

136 comments on “Key on ISIS ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. karol 1
    5 November 2014 at 12:49 pm

    A couple of relevant twets:

    From NRT:

    No-one yet asking the obvious question: why doesn’t government just prosecute those funding and joining ISIS?

    Graeme Edgeler:

    Did the PM explain why police couldn’t investigate ISIL supporters in New Zealand instead of the SIS?

    From Key’s stated position on ISIS, we can surmise that Curia’s polling shows that the majority of Kiwis don’t favour sending combat troops to fight ISIS.

    However, Key is still taking the opportunity to propagandise around “terrorism” and state surveillance systems.

    And Key’s “watchlist of free thinkers” is just jaw dropping.

    What credentials do some of the business and sports elite have for providing views on “terrorism”, and how on earth can some of them be characterised as (implied unbiased) “free thinkers”.

    A “group of free thinkers” has been chosen to detect unseen threats to New Zealand’s national security, advising the Prime Minister of danger before it arrives.
    […]
    Papers released to the Herald through the Official Information Act show the advisory group was formed as part of a streamlining process and to help “in anticipating and mitigating strategic national security risks”.
    […]
    DPMC chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite said members of the group had been selected for their areas of expertise. “They’re a group of free thinkers who between them cover the big risk areas.”
    […]
    The committee
    Ian Fletcher – head of the Government Communications Security Bureau
    Sir Peter Gluckman – PM’s chief science adviser
    Therese Walsh – chief executive of the 2015 Cricket World Cup
    Karen Poutasi – chief executive of NZQA
    Keith Turner – chairman of Fisher and Paykel
    Richard Forgan – consulting partner at PWC
    Hugh Cowan – Earthquake Commission executive
    Lt Gen Rhys Jones – former Chief of Defence Force
    Helen Anderson – director of Dairy NZ, Niwa and Branz
    Murray Sherwin – chairman of the Productivity Commission.

    The list says more about Key’s biases and interests, than the main risks to NZ security.

    • Tracey 1.1
      5 November 2014 at 1:23 pm

      no one from the military? … well 1…

      bizarre.. a cynic would think the group is pushing security of corporate interests

      no privacy commissioner
      no hr commissioner
      no ombudsmen
      no rep of every day people

      • karol 1.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 1:23 pm

        Well there’s an exp- military guy there.

        • marty mars 1.1.1.1
          5 November 2014 at 1:27 pm

          any Māori on that list?

          (that’s the three thinkers one not the watchlist) 🙂

        • Tracey 1.1.1.2
          5 November 2014 at 1:29 pm

          yup 1. 1 from science. rest representing corps. I include fletcher in that.

          the ce of cricket world cup is not a sportsperson.

          • alwyn 1.1.1.2.1
            5 November 2014 at 1:51 pm

            Why on earth do you include Ian Fletcher in what you call the “corps”?

            • Tracey 1.1.1.2.1.1
              5 November 2014 at 2:24 pm

              because his past experience is IT not military or secret services and if have followed and read all released documents since his appntmt you get the strong sense he is to support corporate security

              • alwyn …
                5 November 2014 at 2:35 pm

                As far as I can see his entire career was as a Public Servant. That was in New Zealand, Britain and Australia.
                He’s never had a job in a corporation, which is what I am assuming “corps” to mean, in his life.

                • Tracey …
                  5 November 2014 at 2:53 pm

                  and you imagine high level public servants are never corporate puppets?

                • Colonial Rawshark …
                  5 November 2014 at 3:04 pm

                  Fletcher serves the power elite. He always has. And today, the power elite is corporate. He doesn’t serve the public. If he ever did, it was a long time ago.

                  • Tracey …
                    5 November 2014 at 3:06 pm

                    hence someone with a background in IT was preferred to those with military or intelligence experience. cyber security and data farming

    • mac1 1.2
      5 November 2014 at 1:53 pm

      Great! All the known terrorist threats covered.
      Fletcher for the Americans.
      Gluckman for the Mad Scientists.
      Walsh for the South African fast bowlers.
      Poutasi for the dropouts and the crazy nerds.
      Turner for the Daleks.
      Forgan for politically correct women.
      Cowan for taniwha.
      Rhys Jones for rogue military.
      Anderson for E Coli, typhoons and seismic upthrust.
      Sherwin for military hardware merchants, bean counters and developers.

      • Colonial Rawshark 1.2.1
        5 November 2014 at 3:06 pm

        Good you added the last one. I bet some arse from Palantir or similar, is sitting in on most of these meetings.

      • Anne 1.2.2
        5 November 2014 at 7:42 pm

        And not a real academic amongst them – apart from a Mad Scientist?

        Can’t have any real thinkers now can we.

        It shows what a narrow minded, tunnel visioned p—k John Key really is…

    • DoublePlus Good 1.3
      5 November 2014 at 2:16 pm

      ‘Free thinkers’ seems mostly to be ‘Paid-for thinkers’ to me.

    • Tom Jackson 1.4
      5 November 2014 at 2:29 pm

      Great, another bunch of puffed up dumbos.

    • Puddleglum 1.5
      5 November 2014 at 9:06 pm

      From your link karol:

      “Papers released to the Herald through the Official Information Act show the advisory group was formed as part of a streamlining process and to help “in anticipating and mitigating strategic national security risks”.

      “It will be expected to test and examine systems and agencies” then offer advice of how to fix problems, the papers said. The area of expertise for the group was stated as “broad” but focused on “scientific, economic, environmental risks”.”

      So the focus is principally economic I’d guess – after all any identified scientific risks and, probably, environmental risks are likely to be heavily loaded towards those that present an economic risk (e.g., biosecurity) rather than, for example, risks to the environment from forms of economic activity, TPPA inspired ‘liberalisation’ of resource use and the like.

      That economic precedence and general interpretation of ‘risks’ seems likely given the composition of the panel.

  2. Ad 2
    5 November 2014 at 1:10 pm

    We should expect to see specific names leaked about local suspects, to build the story of inevitability. He is taking great care to build his case.

    The breadth of the risk fields from the list of free thinkers would be chilling if the SIS remit were extended to those fields. Slightly surprised there’s no climate expert in there.

    Key is setting up the flag debate and the security debate to intersect into a deep nationalist theme. This political strategy didn’t even occur like this through the entir Cold War. He is seeking to secure the ‘nation builder’ mantle permanently away from the Opposition. It makes it even harder for Labour or the Greens to manoeuvre within this kind of politics.

    • karol 2.1
      5 November 2014 at 1:27 pm

      The Left need to frame their/our own narrative – eg about a caring society.

      Key is imposing the narrative from above.

      The Left needs to work with communities and ordinary folk to develop a narrative that means something to them – develop a narrative from below.

      Key also is working within some limits – ie to how much Kiwis will accept. Clearly sending forces to combat ISIS is a step too far, even though Key would be as keen as.

      • Tracey 2.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 1:32 pm

        hence curias polling which is in part to show key what he needs to do to move opinion his way

    • Colonial Rawshark 2.2
      5 November 2014 at 3:08 pm

      He is seeking to secure the ‘nation builder’ mantle permanently away from the Opposition.

      Well that’s pretty easy since neither Greens nor Labour laid claim to that mantle in a credible way. (Both wanted to keep the books balanced and didn’t want to be spending the extra billions a year that would be required).

  3. Tracey 3
    5 November 2014 at 1:19 pm

    well said

    40 to 80 people becomes 100 in sopers head.

    workplace deaths and murders total higher than 80 a year.

    • fisiani 3.1
      5 November 2014 at 1:53 pm

      40 to 80 psychopathic brainwashed bastards could do a lot of harm. No wonder Phil Goff and David Shearer were happy with the proposed changes after being briefed by officials.
      Sadly I expect the Greens to continue to live in fairy land and profess that these people are just misguided peaceful mung bean eating basket weavers. Greens are totally unrealistic about the real world and must never be allowed to be a part of any future government.

      • DoublePlus Good 3.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 2:18 pm

        You are correct, the 59 psychopathic brainwashed bastards known as the National Party MPs have done untold damage to this country. Those National Party MPs should definitely be closely watched so we can stop their terrorist activity.

      • fisiani 3.1.2
        5 November 2014 at 2:21 pm

        Utterly disgraceful comments by Metiria. The Greens are worse than scum.

        • tinfoilhat 3.1.2.1
          5 November 2014 at 2:25 pm

          What are you on about ?

          • Nic the NZer 3.1.2.1.1
            5 November 2014 at 2:35 pm

            I believe it was this,

            “Our democracy is only as strong as our personal freedoms.”
            Turei says Key has eroded NZers personal freedoms and civil liberties today by supporting the US’ fight against ISIS. The “politics of fear” have been introduced into our domestic politics.
            Greens call for NZ to lead effort that will lead to international peace and security, as well as increased security at home. Key’s speech today moves NZ further from peace and weakens our democracy, Turei said.

            The Greens do not support any form of military assistance in Iraq, which they say is a contribution to the war effort, even in a training capacity as proposed by the government.

            – Stuff

          • left for deadshark 3.1.2.1.2
            5 November 2014 at 2:59 pm

            The fool been watching,Parliament. 👿

          • fisiani 3.1.2.1.3
            5 November 2014 at 3:38 pm

            The disgraceful pacifist handwringing greeted with sneers and jeers from every part of Parliament. The Greens believe that singing kumbyya and smoking dope will bring about world peace. ISIL are worse than anything dreamed up by the worst of the Nazis 80 years ago. No wonder they have never been a member of any government. The only party in Parliament with this distinction of abject failure and rejection by the public and every other party.

            • minarch 3.1.2.1.3.1
              5 November 2014 at 4:16 pm

              “ISIL are worse than anything dreamed up by the worst of the Nazis 80 years ago.”

              good god your naive

              or willfully ignorant , one of the two

              ISIS is no more than 10,000 hardcore fighters, with the REAL core being around 1000 Chechen fighters ( These are some pretty bad-ass dudes admittedly) the rest are part timers, or of little use in ACTUAL combat (much like the “foreign jihadis” we keep hearing about )

              They face the 250,000 + men of the Iraqi Army, The 120,000+ women & men of the YPG/YPJ/Peshmerga who are considered the BEST light infantry in the region,The Syrian National Army , and a slew of foreign volunteers fighting along side the Peshmerga

              the blitzkrieg it aint,

              hence why they have been “encircling” Kobane for over a year now, thats all they can achieve , sitting around outside the town lobbing the occasional artillery shell…

              you really are gullible enough to believe ANY thing your fed by the media wont you ?

              • Billy Fish …
                6 November 2014 at 10:40 pm

                To get a realistic view of the threat of ISL look to Turkeys response. They are a regional power and they fully understand ISIL (as a ground occupying military force) is a short term threat of Facist Scum with a longer game plan of actively drawing in US and allies into more combat operations. The group is playing on the propaganda value of western troops in the middle east as a longer term recruiting strategy.

                Sending in forces is what ISIL/IS want.
                Providing support to the contra ISIL/IS forces is a better idea.

                The Turkish state is more concerned about the risk of a stronger Kurdish state on its borders hence their reluctance to allow movement of Kurdish fighters into the zone of operations.

                Best option I have seen was the response to the former British Army commander in the region (sorry name escape) but he stated the way to end this sort of circle is economic not military.

                But what would I know……

            • Tracey 3.1.2.1.3.2
              5 November 2014 at 4:51 pm

              Godwin

            • DoublePlus Good 3.1.2.1.3.3
              5 November 2014 at 4:56 pm

              “The Greens believe that singing kumbyya and smoking dope will bring about world peace”
              When was the last time stoners decided to invade another country? Eh?

            • Paul 3.1.2.1.3.4
              5 November 2014 at 5:01 pm

              Target the message, not the messenger.

              Invading Iraq in 2003 did not work.
              Sending troops to Afghanistan did not work.
              Destabilising Libya did not work.
              Destabilising Syria did not work.

              So unless the motives for doing each of the above is different to the ones we are told, why would we be supporting military action work this time?

            • BassGuy 3.1.2.1.3.5
              5 November 2014 at 11:59 pm

              As I understand it, ISIL are a group of mostly inexperienced fighters (with a hardcore group of tough Chechens) who are filling the power vacuum created after the US left the area.

              If they’re so tough, why are they currently being being given a bit of a thrashing by a medium-sized town (Kobanê) who don’t have enough food and water, and very little air support from anyone?

        • Weepus beard 3.1.2.2
          5 November 2014 at 2:25 pm

          Greens…must never be allowed to be a part of any future government.

          The Greens are worse than scum.

          This is you in the last 30 minutes.

          Go and have a lie down, poppet.

        • karol 3.1.2.3
          5 November 2014 at 2:31 pm

          Turei has rejected Key’s politics of fear and spoken for peace, security, democracy and freedom. She said his announced security provisions today erode democratic freedoms… and much more.

          Annette King, on the other hand, just accepted Key’s framing, and said they will scrutinise the bill in those terms.

          A bold and positive speech by Turei on the real way to protect freedoms and security, and to oppose ISIS.

          • ghostwhowalksnz 3.1.2.3.1
            5 November 2014 at 2:35 pm

            Good approach for for any support of Keys anti freedom laws would be to have say a 5 year sunset clause.

            • Colonial Rawshark 3.1.2.3.1.1
              5 November 2014 at 3:12 pm

              So they put that in the Patriot Act because its clauses were so controversial. And every 5 years they rubber stamp it for another 5 years without blinking now.

          • Tracey 3.1.2.3.2
            5 November 2014 at 2:42 pm

            ms king not wanting to frighten national voters seeks to win voters to labour

          • Murray Rawshark 3.1.2.3.3
            6 November 2014 at 3:33 am

            Annette King showing once again that Labour is a craven partner in the running of the Washington branch office. Even Goff is better than that.

            Good on Metiria for saying something sensible. Even if we do train the Iraqi Army, all they do is run away or join ISIL. We can only make the situation worse. The Iraqi Army is mainly just a mechanism for generals to collect the wages of non-existent soldiers.

        • Sanctuary 3.1.2.4
          5 November 2014 at 2:48 pm

          This committee is a nascent Star Chamber and the beginnings of a totalitarian committee for political thought crimes.

      • Tracey 3.1.3
        5 November 2014 at 2:38 pm

        not as much harms as murderers rapists and unsafe workplaces have already done. go read about mccarthyism and see if knowledge can prise your eyes and mind open. by all means be a fool but why take everyone down with you.

      • Tracey 3.1.4
        5 November 2014 at 3:01 pm

        ahhhhh the real world. articulately laid out in david seymours maiden speech.

  4. travellerev 4
    5 November 2014 at 1:53 pm

    Cameron when speaking to the UN this year:

    “As evidence emerges about the backgrounds of those convicted of terrorist offences, it is clear that many of them were initially influenced by preachers who claim not to encourage violence, but whose world view can be used as a justification for it.

    The peddling of lies: that 9/11 was a Jewish plot and the 7/7 London attacks were staged.”

    From John Key today:

    “Others on the list were involved in funding terrorism, radicalising others or becoming radicalised themselves.”

    Harper Canada:

    “terrorists” for lone individuals driven crazy with no more social supports for them, and “radicalization” with no modifier as the ultimate problem of thought behind the terror.

    Tony Abbott:

    Abbott said, adding that stopping the advance of Isis should reduce its magnetism for people around the globe looking to join a fight.

    But conspiring? Neh, our governments wouldn’t do that. Ever!

  5. Wayne 5
    5 November 2014 at 1:54 pm

    There is a fundamental distinction between what the police do and what the SIS do. The difference is a key reason why nations have intelligence agencies.

    The police surveil people they suspect are committing crimes. That is the basis the police get their warrants to search and surveil. To allow the police to do more would be a major extension of power.

    The SIS may be surveilling people who are not committing crimes, but are a threat to national security. Of course the surveillance requires a warrant (unless it is simply observing a person in a public space). That is why you have to have an Inspector General of Intelligence. The powers of the SIS are broader than the police, although confined to the specific area of national security. Therefore these powers need a degree of monitoring by the Inspector General..

    In the police case the monitoring is effectively done by the Courts once the person surveilled is arrested and bought before the courts. That will not happen with the majority of the people surveilled by the SIS, since they will never be charged with a crime.

    This distinction is well understood by people like Phil Goff, or more pertinently Helen Clark.

    • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1
      5 November 2014 at 2:10 pm

      Funding a terrorist group is a crime. Joining a terrorist group is a crime.

      The Prime Minister has alleged both these crimes have been committed. No prosecutions though, you say.

      Given the need to look at innocent people in the course of legitimate inquiries, what percentage of the eighty being looked at are even involved in criminal activity?

      • Wayne 5.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 2:35 pm

        One Anonymous Bloke

        Often the people being surveilled by the SIS are being looked at on a precautionary basis, well before all the elements of a crime are disclosed. Therefore the police would never be able to get a warrant. In fact the intent of the SIS surveillance is that a crime will not be committed.

        As I note, this is one of the key distinctions between intelligence agencies and the police.

        But it also means intelligence agencies need to monitored in a different way to the police.

        • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.1.1
          5 November 2014 at 3:24 pm

          Basically anyone and everyone can be monitored for any made-up reason now.

          I presume once you are on their lists (like any number of us at The Standard probably are) there is no way of getting off them. Watched for life by the IT pervs. Probably not even NZ based ones.

          Prosecutions Wayne. The PM suggests that some Kiwis are today actively supporting terrorist organisations. That is against the law. Where are the prosecutions. Or is this reliance on the secret organs of the state only going to increase, bypassing all our normal civil processes, checks and balances.

          • Tracey 5.1.1.1.1
            5 November 2014 at 3:35 pm

            and it will almost always include those on the leftnot the right

          • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.1.2
            5 November 2014 at 3:35 pm

            Dr. Mapp says if the system works as advertised there will be zero crime committed so therefore zero prosecutions. What could possibly go wrong?

            • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.1.1.2.1
              5 November 2014 at 3:51 pm

              History is full of examples of the slide towards secret police states. It always starts with changes to the legal and judicial framework giving the state new powers with no real accountability. Then the secret organs of the state begin to use those new laws – sometimes (as we have seen overseas) applying secret and unusual interpretations of those new laws as well.

              • One Anonymous Bloke …
                5 November 2014 at 4:02 pm

                As the lone demonstrator said to the thronged media “I know I’m going to prison: this whole country is a prison.” (Just thinking about what it means to have your passport cancelled)

                Meanwhile, a terrorist storms the cockpit of a commercial airliner and demands to be taken “to a free country”.

                The pilot replies “This is an airplane mate, not a bloody spaceship!”

        • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2
          5 November 2014 at 3:33 pm

          So the government is cancelling the passports (and breaching the human rights) of people who have by definition committed no crime, there being no evidential test that will pass muster to convict them.

          The answer to my question is: zero percent if the system works. Which it manifestly doesn’t: fourteen years ago Al Quaeda were a well-funded campsite: now the heirs to their foul creed are a country.

          Slow clap, Dr. Mapp.

          • Chooky 5.1.1.2.1
            5 November 2014 at 4:07 pm

            what say you want to go to Syria to look at the religious architecture?…on the way to Palestine to look at the religious architecture?….or if you are a Jew heading to what you think as Israel to look at the religious architecture ?….will you get your passport confiscated?

            …it is all a bit confusing….for a start…who is a terrorist?!

            …who is a tourist?

            …who decides?

            ….whoever decides… they should be able to give reasons for their decisions out in the open

            ….it should not be an invisible court by invisible men

            …spying on New Zealanders!

          • Colonial Rawshark 5.1.1.2.2
            5 November 2014 at 5:33 pm

            So the government is cancelling the passports (and breaching the human rights) of people who have by definition committed no crime, there being no evidential test that will pass muster to convict them.

            It’s a slow creeping return to absolutism; where the elite and the 3%-4% who work for them have all the power and none of the accountability.

            These draconian measures are first applied to a very few individuals. Then to small but unpopular, and easily publicly marginalised, groups. And finally to whole classes of people that the Government deems a threat to “security.” Those who are politically active in the wrong camp or those who dare to speak out to ‘undermine national unity during a time of war’ etc.

            This shit is cookbook standard as its been done so many times in history. But every time the people in charge think they are being so clever and subtle about it.

            • One Anonymous Bloke 5.1.1.2.2.1
              5 November 2014 at 6:05 pm

              cookbook standard

              Patterns aren’t evidence of malice.

              Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.

              • Colonial Rawshark …
                5 November 2014 at 6:18 pm

                Patterns aren’t evidence of malice.

                Hmmmm? Except if you look at history. When these powers are given to the secret police, they will always be used and abused by both the elite and their minions.

                And it’s not just things like COINTELPRO which are a matter of historical record now. Look up LOVEINT.

                Further, this is international co-ordination of spying law changes. Also technology implementation and co-operation enabling unaccountable government agencies to intrude into every citizens (and business’s) privacy at any time, including retrospectively.

                Hell of a capability to have turn up by coincidence mate.

          • Tracey 5.1.1.2.3
            5 November 2014 at 5:37 pm

            because we are surveilling people not necessarily committing crimes and to prevent crimes every time axcrime is not committed we have won the war on terror. coincidentally no onecan prove we didnt prevent crimes

    • Anne 5.2
      5 November 2014 at 2:42 pm

      This distinction is well understood by people like Phil Goff, or more pertinently Helen Clark.

      What about the following scenario Wayne?

      If, during the course of their work, the SIS learn of criminal activities being under-taken (or having been undertaken in the past), they have an obligation to pass the information on to the police and for the police to proceed with an investigation based on that information?

      This is a genuine question Wayne. I really would like to know your understanding of such a scenario. Thanks.

      • Colonial Rawshark 5.2.1
        5 November 2014 at 3:38 pm

        In the US they have been doing retrospective reconstructions of evidence against people.

        That is, the intelligence services (who may have been surveilling an individual illegally) tip off regular law enforcement. The regular police then go off to build a case and make it look like the information used in court was gathered through regular law enforcement methods.

        • Anne 5.2.1.1
          5 November 2014 at 6:41 pm

          Very interesting CR.

          I note Wayne wasn’t prepared to answer. My reason for asking the question was in fact to do with a local set of unlawful and clandestine activities I don’t believe were conducted by anyone associated with the NZ security agencies – at least I sincerely hope there was no association. They are historical and happened around the time of the first invasion of Iraq in 1991.

      • Tracey 5.2.2
        5 November 2014 at 5:41 pm

        too hard. sorry.

    • Tracey 5.3
      5 November 2014 at 2:55 pm

      can you address this Wayne it is pertinent to stuff within the lawcommission ambit.

      http://thestandard.org.nz/roastbusters-not-prosecuted/#comment-918612

    • Tracey 5.4
      5 November 2014 at 2:58 pm

      can you give some examples of threats to national security which arent crimes?

      • Wayne 5.4.1
        5 November 2014 at 3:22 pm

        Tracey,

        Probably something like being in dialogue with ISIS recruiters, or really deep look at heaps of ISIS websites, bomb making sites. But especially indicating a serious desire to go to Syria (which would be a key factor to surveil), particularly if there are other people that the person knows who have already gone to Syria or have made a serious effort to do so.

        Such actions are probably not crimes at that point, but they surely would be a matter of concern. And I would have thought worth keeping that person under surveillance. It would be the culminative effect of actions, not just a casual look at ISIS websites, which would not be sufficient for a warrant.

        But I should state this is just my speculation, not knowledge.

        • Tracey 5.4.1.1
          5 November 2014 at 3:25 pm

          understand at speculation, not knowledge. thanks.

        • Chooky 5.4.1.2
          5 November 2014 at 4:24 pm

          ….” indicating a serious desire to go to Syria (which would be a key factor to surveil), particularly if there are other people that the person knows who have already gone to Syria or have made a serious effort to do so”

          ……what about eminent religious theologians ( not naming any names) who have taken many religious tours of Syria ? …and Palestine ?…and Israel ?… will they now be spied on retrospectively ..have their passports taken?…be thrown into jail?.

          • Wayne 5.4.1.2.1
            5 November 2014 at 4:37 pm

            Chooky,

            You have deliberately taken the quote out of context. Pretty obviously it is the combination of factors that counts. Essentially you have to look like you are wanting to join ISIS to fight.

            • Chooky 5.4.1.2.1.1
              5 November 2014 at 5:08 pm

              @ Wayne ….same applies to spy agencies…taking statements out of context…eg Urawera Raids

              …are you saying that “quotes out of context” never occurs when surveillance is put on innocent people by spy agencies ?

              • Chooky …
                5 November 2014 at 5:32 pm

                according to Edward Snowden surveillance by spy agencies are always taking “quotes out of context”

                …how big does the context picture have to be? …or how small? ….before innocent New Zealanders lose their freedom and privacy to surveillance and spying….by prying annoymous men…. bent on their own power and control?

                …this way to a Police State and Totalitarianism!

            • framu 5.4.1.2.1.2
              6 November 2014 at 9:25 am

              considering the US detained the exact same type of person chooky describes, several times, i would argue its entirely in context

              only someone who doesnt know recent history re: western ramping up of surveilance would claim otherwise

  6. Neil 6
    5 November 2014 at 4:21 pm

    “These are people in, or from New Zealand who are in various ways participating in extremist behaviour”.
    Does that mean that anyone who speaks out against or criticises Key, is put into the category of “extremist behaviour”.

    • minarch 6.1
      5 November 2014 at 4:40 pm

      heres some homegrown extremists for you

      http://www.nationalfront.org.nz/

      • DoublePlus Good 6.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 5:01 pm

        And some more:

        https://www.national.org.nz/

      • McFlock 6.1.2
        5 November 2014 at 5:21 pm

        Back around the time the interwebz was just beginning, I did hear a rumour that folks who took the Austrian H-man’s wee book from the library were reported to the SIS for their lists.

        But then, at about the same time they were burgling peace activitsts to place bugs, so who knows what the SIS’ priorities were.

        • Chooky 6.1.2.1
          5 November 2014 at 5:41 pm

          yes “peace activists ” …are the biggest threats of all!

          ….like the Greens…and Maori

          ….an irony there somewhere

    • Tracey 6.2
      6 November 2014 at 8:04 am

      i have an uncle, stood for nat candidacy three times. its in his DNA. he told me as he towered over me in an angry manner a couple of months ago that hager must be spied on because ” his extreme politics threatens our way of life”…

      otherwise he is an ordinary white middleclass male homosexual.

  7. Jay 7
    5 November 2014 at 4:58 pm

    Apparently all you geniuses with about 1% of the information think you know more about this issue and know how to do this complex and sensitive job better than all the sis staff, the prime ministers past and present, Phil goff, David Shearer, and goodness knows how many other bright, wise, and educated kiwis, many of whom are experts in this field.

    You don’t know. You can’t know. You will never know. We just have to trust them, they just can’t tell us, you must know that loose lips sink ships. This is our national security for heavens sake.

    These radicals are exceedingly dangerous. How many trains and buses and buildings do they need to blow up, and how many people do they have to murder before you realise that these people are a serious and very real threat to NZ.

    If your family is blown up in an explosion at macDonalds will you want answers, or will you simply compare it to work place deaths and keep it in perspective.

    Thank heaven for our governments past and present who have kept our security issues secure, and done such a fine job of taking care of us.

    The only conspiracy here is a government and opposition conspiracy to keep nz, and hence themselves, their families, and all of us, as safe as possible. You owe these guys, many of whom are ordinary kiwis, respect for that at least, even if you can’t bring yourself to be grateful.

    • Paul 7.1
      5 November 2014 at 5:03 pm

      They lied to us in 2003.
      Weapons of mass destruction the reason for Iraq.

      They lied to us in 2013.
      Chemical weapons in Syria.

      And you still trust them.

    • DoublePlus Good 7.2
      5 November 2014 at 5:09 pm

      So basically you have 100% bought all the fearmongering. You are probably more likely to get killed by a golfball than to die of terrorism in this country. You should probably freeze in terror every time you are within 200m of a golf course. Or take a walk in a public park. Or eat a sandwich. Or climb a flight of stairs.
      Where is your outrage at those extremely dangerous activities being permitted in New Zealand. If you are to be logically consistent you should be seeking to ban them all.
      Honestly, I despair at the lack of even an iota of critical thinking ability in our population.

      • Paul 7.2.1
        5 November 2014 at 5:12 pm

        Yeah, it’s funny how all those nasty ISIS stories turned up in a hurry.
        ISIS been doing much the same for quite a while, even when the west was supporting them.
        Then they ignored their horrific behaviour.

      • Nic the NZer 7.2.2
        5 November 2014 at 5:17 pm

        I was ‘almost killed’ twice by golf balls going up. I try not to worry about the ‘debilitating fear’ of rogue golf however.

    • minarch 7.3
      5 November 2014 at 5:22 pm

      I personally neither want nor believe I need the Govts protection

      I owe them nothing

      • Paul 7.3.1
        5 November 2014 at 5:27 pm

        Their lack of concern for children in need and citizens at their place of work (forestry, mines, ports) certainly suggests the government does not prioritise their protection.

    • Murray Rawshark 7.4
      6 November 2014 at 3:53 am

      They forgot to keep Eddie Abbott safe. They forgot to keep Fernando Pereira safe.

      Please get a comfort blanket and a chew toy. They’ll make you feel more secure.

    • Tracey 7.5
      6 November 2014 at 8:06 am

      if only you felt the same about the work place deaths and maimings taking place in the thousands in the last decade that were preventable

  8. Paul 8
    5 November 2014 at 5:33 pm

    “Others on the list were involved in ….radicalising others”

    Does the ACT Party fit this category?

    • Chooky 8.1
      5 November 2014 at 5:59 pm

      OMG….”radicalising others”!…shock horror

      …. i guess feminists, peace activists, Greens , Maori, Opposition MPs, academics , scientists speaking out of turn …anyone who opposes NACT…..all fit this category

  9. Jay 9
    5 November 2014 at 6:16 pm

    So since there is according to you a low risk of my being killed in an attack, and since I face other risks such as rogue golf balls, we should not monitor anyone in nz, especially not radical Muslims?

    By that logic since only eighty people odd are murdered each year, and even then usually by a family member, and since I am single, and since even females in relationships with violent men almost certainly won’t ever be killed, the police needn’t bother arresting the offender or even attending in the first place, or try and prevent any deaths

    And since even at its worst I was still very unlikely to be killed in a car accident, I don’t see why we need road policing.

    And since I am unlikely to get aids since i am neither gay nor a junkie, and since it’s rare anyway, i don’t see why we should treat aids victims or spend money on prevention

    It’s so easy to call it fearmongering, but we can say the same about global warming, the depletion of oil crisis, the government spying on everyday kiwis and taking away our rights, pollution, loss of marine life etc etc.

    It’s just a really stupid argument, which you can’t really argue about anyway since you don’t have all the facts and rightly so.

    If one of these radicals is planning an attack right now (which for all you know they may be), you think the government should down tools all of a sudden just cause it is highly unlikely to happen to you?

    • Colonial Rawshark 9.1
      5 November 2014 at 6:25 pm

      If we give up our civil rights and accept overarching government power to intrude into our lives with no recourse, then the terrorists win.

      Why would you support that.

      So since there is according to you a low risk of my being killed in an attack, and since I face other risks such as rogue golf balls, we should not monitor anyone in nz, especially not radical Muslims?

      This is really a dickish and stupid line of reasoning from you.

      The RADICALS in this country trying to undermine our democracy are the ones who are implementing a SECURITY STATE.

      Please try and get that into your head.

      Also – the government doesn’t spend hundreds of millions of dollars and change laws to try and protect you from rogue golf balls. All this strikes me as being an effort to bolster National Security. I mean, National Party Security. The security of the elites, not ours.

    • framu 9.2
      6 November 2014 at 9:29 am

      you seriously need to go and do some research on who gets spied on – by their own admission the 5 eyes partner countries spend a vast proportion of their time following animal activists, peace activists, left wing groups, student groups etc etc – radical muslims is very far down the list.

      and – not all terrorists are muslims

      or you could behave like mrs lovejoy

  10. Skinny 10
    5 November 2014 at 7:44 pm

    It comes as no surprise that The Government sponsored media mates runs a 3rd Degree special on the GCSB. All designed to portray them in a good light. Never mind the fact that under this National outfit our rights have been stripped away in a breech worst than any other Government in our history.

    • phillip ure 10.1
      5 November 2014 at 8:05 pm

      and i found it particularly nausea-inducing how king so eagerly supported giving even more powers to the spooks..

      (..to his credit..shearer spoke after her..and acquitted himself well..with his nuanced-view of the claimed imperatives to go there..)

      ..and so yes..we will be combatants/invaders..our being there will be seen as nothing else..

      ..and so..our chances of an attack on us here in retaliation..

      ..is not beyond the bounds of possibility..

      ..and key has done that…

      ..has dragged us into the firing-line..

      ..and our ‘training’ will do what ten yrs of american ‘training’ failed to do..eh..?

      ..i’d like to hear how exactly that will be done…

      • b waghorn 10.1.1
        5 November 2014 at 8:31 pm

        If we don’t’ keep training new fighters who will the yanks fight in the next war and the one after that etc etc

  11. RedBaronCV 11
    5 November 2014 at 9:10 pm

    Question for Wayne.
    ISIS are a nasty bunch and good at publishing the fact. Howver, they are no nastier or closer to NZ than plenty of other equally as nasty groups over the last several decades. Why do we suddenly need to hand out all these extra powers? What is so different this time?
    Have we been told by the US to allow people to settle here that the US want watched? If so why did we do that?

    Frankly if John Key stopped sucking up to the yanks we’d all be a lot safer. Nor do I think much of the smear aimed at the local Muslims. Many I suspect have settled here with relief at living somewhere peaceful. They are likely to be the first group to dob in anyone with poor intentions.

  12. Wayne Mapp 12
    5 November 2014 at 9:38 pm

    The SIS has been around for many decades without any noticeable reduction in our civil liberties. In fact the trend of the last two decades has been to constrain its powers through legislation and better oversight.
    So I don’t think todays annoucements are really that significant from a civil rights perspective.
    And I am certain you can trust the Director Rebecca Kitteridge to have a very clear understanding of the law and the rights its protects

    • KJT 12.1
      5 November 2014 at 9:58 pm

      Yeah right!
      We can trust National to follow the law.
      Like Australia who have just allowed their ‘wannabee’ Tom Clancy s to detain people indefinitely without trial, and keep it secret, spy on anyone without warrants and commit torture. (Sorry, “coercive questioning”). If they break the law just make it legal afterwards, as they have done before.
      Who are our Government afraid of? It is not ISIS. They haven’t done anything about greater threats to NZ than ISIS, such as AGW, pest imports and child poverty.

      Trust us you say. You lot have already proven conclusively you cannot be trusted with an expense account, let alone a country.

    • RedBaronCV 12.2
      5 November 2014 at 10:05 pm

      I don’t know if that was intended as an answer to my question to you but if is was could you please not try to avoid/divert from the issue I raised.

      How is this pack of nasties so different from earlier ones that we need a law change?

    • Paul 12.3
      5 November 2014 at 10:24 pm

      How naive are you?

    • Tracey 12.4
      6 November 2014 at 8:12 am

      “..to constrain its powers through legislation and better oversight. …”

      didnt stop them breaking the law did it, that legislation and better oversight? and keys reaction when they did? not to deter the breaking of laws but to legalise the illegal behaviour.

      i see that post election the gcsb admits nsa personnel working out of nz. funny that wasnt released when it was a hot topic pre election. i mean key could, he releases other stuff that suits him.

    • Tracey 12.5
      6 November 2014 at 8:16 am

      wayne isnt naive he is on the side of Right. he knows how many people with right wing politics get spied on compared to people with left wing views and he is fine with that. he wll tell us soon how keith locke was a threat to nat security from the age of 11 to prove his point. he will explain soon how isil is suddenly a threat despite having been committing awful acts for over 2 years. where the usa goes so waynes world view goeth

    • Tracey 12.6
      6 November 2014 at 8:18 am

      can we trust those under her to tell and show her everything. cmon wayne trust a service that deals in deception is abit of a stretch even for you.

      • KJT 12.6.1
        7 November 2014 at 8:49 am

        Wayne should be asking why those with left wing, social democrat, views which would be totally uncontroversial in Europe, or in New Zealand 30 years ago, now feel they have to write under a pseudonym, while the most rabid, anti-social, extreme right feel free to infest the radio waves, TV and blogs under their own names.

        • Tracey 12.6.1.1
          7 November 2014 at 9:41 am

          waynes “answers” usually rest in more questions cos he tends to say what he thinks and ignores the question. he remains a nat politician which is why NO former politician shld be a law commissioner.

          the ideology is strong within him

    • Draco T Bastard 12.7
      7 November 2014 at 9:20 am

      I can recall several episodes of the SIS infringing upon our civil liberties. Giving them more power will make that worse.

      Of course, National don’t give a shit about civil liberties as they’re after total control of the population.

  13. Wayne 13
    6 November 2014 at 9:03 am

    Tracey,

    Three posts in the last few minutes? Well, yes I think the SIS law has and will become more robust with better oversight in the last 2 years. Shifting the authorisation of warrants to the AG is a good step. And yes, having Rebecca Kitteridge makes quite a difference.

    RedBaronCV,

    I did not answer your comment because I could only do so through an old phone, but your question is a good one.

    What makes IS any different to say the autonomous Kurdish ruled part of Iraq? They both want new states. And perhaps if IS had acted liked the Kurds no-one would care much.

    But IS has done four things that make a difference. First, they massacre a lot of people, including civilians and troops who have surrendered. Second, they kill (behead) western journalists and aid workers simply to demonstrate their hatred for the west. Third, they actively recruit western citizens, including New Zealanders, to do these things. Fourth, they flaunt it on international media as an intended taunt to the West.

    Nations reactions are not always cool and clinical. That is why the third and fourth things have their effect on western nations. IS has got the impact they seemingly wanted.

    And for centuries the middle east has engaged the west in a way that other parts of the world don’t. Hence the Marine Corp song’s reference to the “shores of Tripoli”. Oil was not the factor back then, it was pirates, somewhat like Somalia.

    Now if New Zealand took the Green Party approach, as I suspect most posters on this site would like, New Zealand would effectively be no longer a functioning part of the west. We would be like Chile.

    No-one asks Chile or virtually any other South American country to get involved in the various causes of the west (although a few of them did have small military contributions in Afghanistan, just as they had small contributions in WW2). Essentially they do not get involved.

    Is New Zealand going to opt out of the West? Well, not while National leads the government, and at least going by history, not while Labour leads the govt. But if a combination of the Greens, the Maori Party, the remnants of Mana (will they come back?) were the core of the government well yes, that is the likely outcome for New Zealand. The Greens would need to get at least 30% of the vote for this to happen.

    And even then, would such an opting out endure, given that at some point the Nats would get back into government. I imagine that such a strong Green voice in the polity would mean that a fundamental shift in New Zealand culture and politics has occurred so that we would become, at best, only a loosely connected part of the West.

    • KJT 13.1
      7 November 2014 at 9:00 am

      You want us to join the USA in “manufacturing terrorists”.

      The West bombing and shooting people, pushing them off their land and killing their civilian brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, makes them want to fight the USA and the West. Surprise!

      Making more and more people poor, and without hope, in England the USA, Australia and New Zealand, makes radical options like joining criminal gangs, jihads or the revolution, seem like a good option.

      Marginalising Muslims in the West and making them the “scary other” will help keep them on “our side”, of course?

      How about the West stop destabilising Governments in the middle East just to keep oil cheap?

      Or even better. Stop supplying them with weapons.

      Chile and the other South American States, that keep out of it have the best idea.

    • Tracey 13.2
      7 November 2014 at 9:24 am

      wayne

      can we trust the people in sis and gcsb to show and tell kitterige everything and why given they are in the game of deception and smoke and mirrors

    • Draco T Bastard 13.3
      7 November 2014 at 9:26 am

      And for centuries the middle east has engaged the west in a way that other parts of the world don’t.

      Get it right – the West has been invading the ME without cause for centuries both for religious and empire reasons.

      No-one asks Chile or virtually any other South American country to get involved in the various causes of the west

      Lucky them not getting invited to murder and pillage.

  14. RedBaronCV 14
    6 November 2014 at 8:34 pm

    To Wayne,
    So under all the verbiage we have the following:

    ISIS upload their dirty deeds to the internet ( along with plenty of others)
    They do it to taunt the West (well parts of the west) into an emotive kneejerk reaction.

    JohnKey and NACT (but not NZ’s citizens) want to be provoked into an emotive kneejerk reaction ?- so bugger statemanship- even if you are the PM?

    If we don’t do an armed response we are not part of the west. Well the american west maybe but there are more “west’s” than that or Chile too for that matter. .

    Active recruitment – listed on WINZ jobs? – Citizens can only fight in NACT approved wars? The most likely outcomes are death or utter disillusionment. Just how useful are the untrained really? If our citizens do this sort of thing they can be charged with murder on their return. Happened to that US company didn’t it. Plus other conflicts have had our citizens in them.

    Summary:
    ISIS are not different, but NACT has an emotive reaction to them?
    If we don’t suck up to the USA then we are not “west”.
    You don’t answer the question about the same suck up actually endangering NZ.
    Some of our citizens might get killed overseas. We might send money? What about death and the anti money laundering rules?

    So how does any of this justify increased suveillance on the 4,500,000 less 88 citizens that are the rest of us?

    Better hope your boss doesn’t see such an incomplete answer. Or are your lot checking up on us?

    • Wayne 14.1
      6 November 2014 at 9:44 pm

      RedBaron CV

      I am making a rather broader point about the west and what it means. After all many western nations will do nothing about ISIL, but the inner group will. And Five Eyes is a bit of a clue.

      Most commentators on the MSM consider the PM has rather finely judged this whole issue, doing enough to matter, but not too much. Now I appreciate that virtually no-one who is “Standard friendly” is going to accept that John Key is anything other than a satrap of the US.

      But I reckon the electoral evidence indicates he has a pretty finely honed understanding of what New Zealander’s will accept.

      • KJT 14.1.1
        7 November 2014 at 9:13 am

        You want us to join the USA in “manufacturing terrorists”.

        The West bombing and shooting people, pushing them off their land and killing their civilian brothers, sisters, sons and daughters, makes them want to fight the USA and the West. Surprise!

        Making more and more people poor, and without hope, in England the USA, Australia and New Zealand, makes radical options like joining criminal gangs, jihads or the revolution, seem like a good option.

        Marginalising Muslims in the West and making them the “scary other” will help keep them on “our side”, of course?

        How about the West stop destabilising Governments in the middle East just to keep oil cheap?

        Or even better. Stop supplying them with weapons.

        Chile and the other South American States, that keep out of it have the best idea.

      • Tracey 14.1.2
        7 November 2014 at 9:22 am

        can you answer my queries about the law commission report on sexual offences… I link you to it but you seemed to miss it.

      • karol 14.1.3
        7 November 2014 at 9:28 am

        Wayne: But I reckon the electoral evidence indicates he has a pretty finely honed understanding of what New Zealander’s will accept.

        Oh, I wouldn’t disagree with that. But along with that he cleverly shifts dominant opinions slightly more int he direction her wants.

        And the majority of op ed views generally (on all issues) in the MSM tend to lean in the Nats/conservative direction as well.

        But what the majority of Kiwis will accept, John Key’s clever manipulations of such, and the critical issues being raised by many here, are different matters.

      • minarch 14.1.4
        7 November 2014 at 9:31 am

        “But I reckon the electoral evidence indicates he has a pretty finely honed understanding of what New Zealander’s will accept.”

        don’t you mean what they have been conditioned to believe,

        Any one with a half decent knowledge of modern warfare or a little time to do some research understand ISIS is no real threat to anyone outside a particular part of the Middle East,

        This version of Islam will never be accepted by the majority of moderate peace loving Muslims & will never gain a serious foothold in the region , nor are they militarily capable of forcing it on them. It will only be a matter of time before they turn to the drug trade for finance which will cause dissension and schisms in the organization like it did with the Taliban

        these western fighters are no more than Walter Mitty adventures, or criminals on the run from other crims or the law

        like “ginger jihadist” Abdullah Elmir , an Australian teenager (17) far from a hardcore fighting machine…..

      • Tracey 14.1.5
        7 November 2014 at 9:46 am

        are u saying offering humanitarian aid… military medical assistance and military engineers rebuilding is opting out of the west?

        the taleban are stil killing innocent people

        so are al queda

        why will this action be any more effective…?

      • Jan Rivers 14.1.6
        7 November 2014 at 12:17 pm

        Wayne,

        There was a long time in the UK Blair government when the cleverness in framing the messages in a way that was acceptable to the public was second to none and focus groups and the daily polling were creating a popular and populist government with a finely tuned understanding of what could pass without ‘frightening the horses’. Eventually though that created government that could not make the necessary hard decisions. nor tell the truth and most importantly whose moral compass was ceded to psychologists and pollsters.

        In NZ endangering our security with a harsh and anti-democratic approach to the terrorist risk, the risks of Investor State Dispute Tribunals, private indebtedness, the demographics of aging, climate change, an economy based on nothing more than disaster recovery, speculation and monoculture will do their damage and then pity the politicians who have to alter their approach to tell us that these things do indeed matter after years of platitudes. Yes you can easily fool most of the people with clever words and a compliant media but to be fair that is propaganda and not political leadership and it should be called as such – loud and often.

        The criticism which Neal Lawson made of the Blair Brown government in 2011 has some strong echoes much closer to home.
        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/10/tony-blair-brownites-blairites

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.