Apologies for the absence. I haven't had much to say, and I've been a little busy with various projects. They're coming along nicely, thanks for the concern.

Anyway. Yesterday, in a nationwide sweep, various abodes were raided and various people arrested, in what has been billed a response to burgeoning domestic terrorism. Students at Auckland University were treated to drive-bys of LAVs of armed soldiers pointing guns. We're told that guerrilla training camps were raided in the Bay of Plenty. An anonymous source was certain to use the word "napalm", just to press home the urgency of the matter.

I tend to reserve judgement on things until more of the full story has come out, but in this case, I know one of the people arrested. I won't mention his or her name, because I am assuming they have name suppression. I strongly doubt this person posed any kind of threat that would warrant the use of the term "terrorism", and I have never known them to be violent or to condone violence. The person is a passionate political activist, to be sure, and is motivated by a fairly clear concern for the welfare of others.

First, a quick look at the associations being made here. "Training camps", "terrorism", "Maori sovereignty", "environmentalist groups", "youth-rights activists" and "Palestinian rights activists" were all mentioned within seconds of each other by the 6pm news.

That's a pretty broad range of folks. The impression such reporting will make on the general populace is an association of climate-change protesters, Palestinian-rights protesters, youth-rights protesters with gun-toting nutters training an army in the heart of Maoristan. This further pushes the divide between mainstream public opinion and political activists - a divide that has recently been narrowing with regards to climate change, at least.

The impression I get so far is people who are of actual serious concern being swept up with people who are of little concern. For what reason, I don't know, but I could hazard a guess. It's always helpful to have a precedent in your back pocket.

The second effect is the question of how exactly these associations and connections were made. My friend - we shall call him/her Kelly - is unlikely to have visited any East Coast training camps, and I would be surprised if Kelly had any direct communication with those involved in the camps. So whence came the information that led to Kelly's arrest?

Before charges can be laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act, justification must be admitted by the Attorney General. That hasn't been done yet, though police will be putting together a case for it. However, the Terrorism Suppression Act was no doubt accompanied by increased police powers for the purposes of surveillance and tracking.

The reason I note this as an effect is because yesterday afternoon, I received a phone call from a prominent local activist, asking if I would come along and participate in a protest against the arrests. I chose not to, but my first thought after hanging up was, "Well, my phone number's on that network now, if it wasn't already."

If I remember correctly, phone calls - and presumably text messages - are the property of a particular government role during transit. Traditionally, this was the Postmaster General, but I'm not sure how it is now. It stands to reason that the first thing any investigation of organised crime will want to be able to do is track networks of cellphone communication. If the (very good) American TV show The Wire is well researched, and I assume it is, police in the States have the power - after convincing a judge that no further investigation is possible without it - to record numbers dialed and texted from specific phones, and to tap phone calls.

With the assumption that Kiwi police doing anti-terrorism work have similar powers, my attitude towards my cellphone has changed. Yesterday, shortly after my activist friend calling me, I received a text from my sister. I wondered if that puts her on an alert network. In the US, under the US PATRIOT Act, such a flimsy connection could potentially give the federal government the power to cease her assets. It's unlikely they would, but it would be within their legal power. What are the limits of such legal power in New Zealand?

Take a look at the definition of terrorism under the TSA. Terrorism is defined as attempting to induce terror or compel a government to act or abstain by acting, through the following threats, intentions or deeds:

a. ...the death of, or other serious bodily injury to, 1 or more persons
(other than a person carrying out the act)
b. a serious risk to the health or safety of a population
c. destruction of, or serious damage to, property of great value or importance, or major economic loss, or major environmental damage, if likely to result in 1 or more outcomes specified in paragraphs (a), (b), and (d)
d. serious interference with, or serious disruption to, an infrastructure facility, if likely to endanger human life:
e. introduction or release of a disease-bearing organism, if likely to devastate the national economy of a country.

The police website gives an abbreviated version:

Is intended to cause the death of, or serious bodily injury to, one or more persons; and
Is carried out for the purpose of advancing an ideological, political, or religious cause; and
Is intended to either:
Induce terror in a civilian population; or
Unduly compel or to force a government or an international organisation to do or abstain from doing any act; and
Is not an act that occurs in a situation of armed conflict and which is, at the time and in the place that it occurs, in accordance with rules of international law applicable to the conflict

The police site doesn't mention the threat of major economic damage.

While the idea is that this definition of terrorism leaves untouched those forms of political activism we call valid - protesting, writing letters, etc. - it occurs to me that some of the more historically effective tools for compelling a government to act one way or another are in a bit of a grey area. If my arrested friend was advocating a general strike, for example, that could be construed as threatening major economic damage with a threat to human life (if certain professions were included in the strike).

Anyway, the fear is now there, to some extent. I'd like to shrug it off as paranoia - as irrational paranoia, I should say - but the breadth of these arrests and raids seems at first glance to stretch the definition of terrorism to breaking point. Whether or not the intention was to send a message, "Don't step too far out of line," that is the message many political activists are hearing. Even if the majority of those arrested are released without being charged, the effect remains: "Yes, we're even watching you, and look what we can do."