What if the police are right with what? With not telling the public what the 17 are actually accused of?
What if you are an idiot? What then?

What if the 'activists' really were planning to kill people?

If those people who have been arrested were actually planning murder - when, as McCarten says, many of them are vegans who don't approve of murdering animals much less humans - then I will eat any item of clothing you recommend to me to the size of a sock or higher. The mere fact that you can ask that question shows that you don't have any clue who the people arrested are and why what you're saying is totally ludicrous.

Some of the are probably innocent, but some of them are possibly involved in activities that warranted police action. Certainly, the police had jsutification for taking action - they knew some Maori speratists were playing with guns in the backwoods, and they claim to have intercepted communications talking about declaring war on New Zealand and killing white people. That would have been enough to warrant some sort of action, don't you agree?

The police may have over-reacted, seizing people who were totally innocent of direct involvement with the Iti and his group, but they had grounds for taking action.

Equally, the calls for all 17 to be released immediately is a similar over-reaction by the left. As I've said before, I'm unsettled by the certainty envinced by so many people posting here - how are they so sure that Iti and co are totally innocent? They might be, but it merits investigation, not an assumption of blamelessness.

Whether Tame Iti was planning to shoot cops or not, the Terrorism laws are still bullshit, and holding people without bail or trial for more than a year while the cops try to rustle up evidence under such laws is bullshit, and secret evidence is bullshit.

In a democratic country, there would be no terrorism laws, all the evidence would be in the public arena by now, Tame and his mates would have been released on bail pending trial. Surely that is something we can all agree with, no matter what our opinions on any putative "armed struggle" nucleus in the Uruweras?

A democratic country menaced by terrorists would need anti-terrorism laws. That they were applicable in this case is doubtful, but that doesn't negate the need for them. After all, if the French decide to blow up another greenpeace ship in Auckland harbour, it would be nice to be able to clobber them with the anti-terror laws before they manage to do it, yes?

As for evidence being released into the public arena, that could prejudice any trial so would have to be approached caustiously. Yes, I, as a concerned citizen, would like to know wat was going on - I live in Palmerston North and some people were arrested there. If there was a terror threat in Palmy, I'd liek to know about it. At the same time, in the interests of giving the accused fair treatment before the law, it is better than the evidence isn't bandied about and dissected in the media.

No, we don't need anti-terror laws. Plotting to blow up a ship is thoroughly illegal anyway without adding new laws designed to provoke terror rather than stop it.

If you think that secret evidence - i.e. evidence that the defence isn't allowed to know about so it can't challenge properly - is in the interests of the DEFENDENTS, then you really are on another planet. As for a "fair trial", who do you think is leaking all that stuff about "napalm bombs" and "IRA training manuals" to the media? Hint: it's not people well-disposed to the defence. The cops are already selectively leaking stuff that make people like you panic and support their civil liberties being taken away - this right should be taken away from them by having ALL the facts that the judge has been allowed to see in the public arena, like they are with every other trial. Why "special treatment" in this case?

Anti-terror laws should be better described as "laws against freedom of speech and freedom of association". Anything else that might be called terrorism - plotting to kill, maim or destroy property - are, as has been seen elsewhere, already illegal, so what do we need new laws for - except to intimidate non-conformist political thought?

If it doesn't bother you that you're not allowed to even know why bail has been denied to most of the suspects - and therefore why, innocent or guilty, they will spend at least a year in jail before they get to trial - then you are truly one of those who would sacrifice freedom for security and thus will get neither.

It isn't certain that they'll be charged under the terrorism act, though, and they won't be spending a year in jail, I'll bet. Most of them'll be out in early November, facing firearm charges.

Since when is the Left "over-reacting"? The coppers are obviously lying about some of the arrested, accusing them of things that everyone knows they wouldn't do. Why, then, should we give any credence to these professional perjurers when they make accusations about others?

While they have been free with vague but defamatory accusations, the coppers have not come forward with any evidence to back them up. Maybe those "unsettled" by the coppers' scare stories should calm down & take a dose of "innocent till proven guilty". And don't hold your breath waiting for the coppers to come through.

I wasn't "unsettled" by "police scare stories" but the automatica assumption that iti and co. are blameless. Some - most? - of those arrested are probably 'guilty' of nothing more than naive association, but some may have more to hide. I've asked this before without getting an answer - why are people so certain that there isn't something behind the allegations? Why are you so trusting of people who may have agendas at odds with what they tell you. you're quick to disbelieve the police, but you should turn some of that admirable sceptcism on your fellows.

We're certain that some of those arrested are innocent. The cops aren't making any distinction between the arrestees, so if they were wrong about some, we have no reason to think they were right about any of them, unless they come up with some compelling evidence to the contrary.

Lurgee

How do we know that you aren't a terrorist. Short answer, we don't. However, in the absence of any firm evidence that you are, we assume you aren't. A bit like we are doing with Tame Iti and the other arrestees. A society that allows armed enforcers to arrest people on suspicion of being terrorists without any evidence that this is so, is not a society I want to live in.

A man is presumed innocent until proven guilty

You don't actually understand what the presumption of innocence means, do you?

It doesn't mean that a person is presumed innocent at every stage of legal proceedings - otherwise, no-one could ever be arrested for anything:

"Well, you're standing over your wife's body with a knife in your hand that exactly matches the 23 stab wounds in her torso, but I must presume your innocent so I'll let you go."

The presumption of innocence means that when the case comes to court, the defendant does not have to prove that he or she didn't commit the crime - the prosecution must show that they did, or at least very likely that it is likely they did.

How can evidence be suppressed from the media and the public, when no terrorism charges are being laid? Maybe the Charges should proceed and the Courts decide in the innocence or guilt of the matter. In this way we would all hear the evidence and make up our own opinion.
Mind you Winston Peters offered a challenge for the defendants to waive their rights and release the information..funny that no offers as yet. I will not hold my breath. We will all just pay more tax for Tame Iti''s legal bills!
Maybe the media can stop making him a the center of attention for a few days.