Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I face investigation for terrorism

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#31

Post by londons_explore »

jasonjayr wrote: post #16
fullarr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an FYI Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out. He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored

Is the "detained without a lawyer" thing actually true in the UK? It was my understanding in the US, that's a pretty concrete feature, and law enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.

Yes, in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases. During that time, you can be questioned, and if you do not answer, then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt ("why did you not say you were just out walking your dog when first asked?").

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#32

Post by hef19898 »

kossTKR wrote: post #21
refaelv wrote: post #12

Well, if you support Hamas after they butchered civilians, yes you'r supporting terrorism.

First of i doubt he's done that. Second, the Israeli military has killed much, much more people, including thousands of civilians, kids and mothers over a half a century. There are countless of videos and reports of rich settlers, harassing, stealing property and straight up killing regular palestinian farmers and families just living in their houses. And third. Israel has actively supported Hamas to destroy moderate…

[flagged]

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#33

Post by dgfitz »

TheDong wrote: post #17
8organicbits wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I volunteered that I thought I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of twitter. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide. The only clue I see is the reference to a tweet. Anyone know which tweet this could refer to? Sounds like advocating violence, with a p…

It is likely the following tweet: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051... > I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation. > But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.

What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance? I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no? Why would the aggressor be in a position of resistance? Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? Aren’t those two things at odds with each other?

Edit: typo

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#34

Post by op00to »

londons_explore wrote: post #25
fullarr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an FYI Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out. He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored

> He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requires that if you know the information required and refuse to provide it, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment. However, the notice must be given properly in writing. So, while these officers perhaps were deceitful in asking verbally for passwords rather than giving a writt…

Man, I totally forgot my password. Over the last 3 weeks I started forgetting passwords, only passwords. (Make note to mention this offhand to my dr at next appointment)

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#36

Post by lucozade »

jasonjayr wrote: post #16
fullarr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an FYI Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out. He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored

Is the "detained without a lawyer" thing actually true in the UK? It was my understanding in the US, that's a pretty concrete feature, and law enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.

Under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act you can be detained for up to an hour without access to legal advice. That's very likely why they were so diligent in keeping it to an hour.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#37

Post by Kudos »

TheDong wrote: post #17
8organicbits wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I volunteered that I thought I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of twitter. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide. The only clue I see is the reference to a tweet. Anyone know which tweet this could refer to? Sounds like advocating violence, with a p…

It is likely the following tweet: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051... > I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation. > But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.

> every act

Oof. I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but that's just too broad.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#38

Post by semanticist »

diggan wrote: post #3

Some context: > Craig John Murray is a Scottish author, human rights campaigner, journalist, and former diplomat [...] he became a political activist, campaigning for human rights and for transparency in global politics as well as for the independence of Scotland [...] Murray was one of few people granted access to Julian Assange's extradition hearing which started in the Old Bailey on 7 September 2020. He published…

In the UK there's the concept of a 'proscribed organisation', that is an organisation which is illegal and the promotion of that organisation is illegal.

Hamas is on the proscribed organisation list.

Here's the relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12

And the list of proscribed organisations and a more accessible explanation of the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...

I think most people in the UK think of this law as being about the Troubles and banning the IRA, etc, but it looks like the list is mostly Islamic extremist groups now.

This law is very clearly being selectively enforced, as lots of people have "express[ed] an opinion or belief that is supportive of" Hamas in recent days, but the police aren't knocking at their doors. (Yet.)

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#39

Post by darkclouds »

kypro wrote: post #4

> I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act > I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer. > I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information. > I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this. This is what I find so terrifyin…

[dead]

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#40

Post by sandworm101 »

jasonjayr wrote: post #16
fullarr wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just an FYI Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out. He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored

Is the "detained without a lawyer" thing actually true in the UK? It was my understanding in the US, that's a pretty concrete feature, and law enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.

>> enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.

In theory, but there are so many exceptions that it isn't really a thing in practice. Driving a car? You have to identify yourself. Crossing a boarder? You are open to total inspection. Using a credit card, your transaction is open to inspection and you need to identify. Called as a witness? You have to participate by answering questions. You can even be imprisoned, for years, as a "material witness" without any hint of accusation. They sometimes do need a "trip through the courts" but that doesn't mean you are going to be part of that trip, or even know about it until after the warrants have been issued. The list of exemptions from the default rules allowing silence are so long as to make them meaningless.

Post reply on HN