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

41–50 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#41

Post by gambiting »

bilekas wrote: post #22

> 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. This is the one that bothers me the most to be honest, how is this possible ? Couldn't one just claim they don't remember constantly, as it seems there is no 'probable cause' or even any traditional 'evidence'.

Like many other things in world - it's not a binary yes or no. It's about what the judge or jury will believe. If you say you don't remember your password but they pull up logs and show that you have just used that password 3 hours earlier, then jury will almost certainly find you guilty, even if yes, there is absolutely no way to prove what the objective "truth" is.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#42

Post by kossTKR »

hef19898 wrote: post #32
kossTKR wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]

True, let's call it Apartheid then, not much better unfortunately.

Also very important to highlight that most people living in Palestine were pretty provincial and moderate farmers before being carpet bombed by settlers which has unsurprisingly lead to extremism.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#43

Post by kypro »

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…

How does this work? If they have to provide writing what's the point? Surely the individual could just wipe their device in that time?

If they confiscate the device during the initial detention then them issuing written notice that they need the password doesn't really change much since they're going to be getting access to your device whether you like it or not.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#44

Post by londons_explore »

diggan wrote: post #19
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…

Yeah, it seems to be a very over-reaching law, as far as I can gather. From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/... > Who can be examined? > The examining officer may only stop and question a person for the purpose of allowing a determination of whether that person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of “terrorism” as def…

They may stop and question anybody. But they cannot stop and question people for the purpose of, for example, recovering stolen goods.

Basically, the officer must currently be working on a terrorism case to be able to use these powers.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#45

Post by fullarr »

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…

Yes and if you force them to prosecute, only then can you take it to an appeals court to strike down an unconstitutional law

The system sucks but this is how it works

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#46

Post by Kudos »

dgfitz wrote: post #33
TheDong wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Are you unfamiliar with the oppression Palestinians experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#47

Post by fullarr »

skrebbel wrote: post #28
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

> Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?

This is universal lmao

And it's not just a current events thing

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#48

Post by gambiting »

op00to wrote: post #34
londons_explore wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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)

As I said in another comment - even though obviously there is no objective way to prove it, like many other things in the justice system it's about what the judge/jury will believe. If they pull up logs that show you've used your password just before your interrogation then you can bet you'll be found guilty even if you really forgot the password.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#49

Post by logicchains »

dgfitz wrote: post #33
TheDong wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance

Imagine if Russia manages to annex most of Ukraine, and converts the rest of Ukraine into an open-air prison. If twenty years later the people in that part of Ukraine manage to gather weapons and launch a counter-attack on Russia, wouldn't that count as resistance?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#50

Post by DontchaKnowit »

dgfitz wrote: post #33
TheDong wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Well people view israel as the aggressor because they have been pushing palestinians off their land by force (as for the truth of this claim, ive no clue, consult an expert)
Post reply on HN