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

71–80 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#71

Post by lesuorac »

londons_explore wrote: post #44
diggan wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Stolen goods can't be used for terrorism?

I mean how am I supposed to know if you don't intend to use that banana you didn't pay for as part of a phalic terrorism display without getting access to your text messages?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#72

Post by diggan »

fullarr wrote: post #62
diggan wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is universal lmao It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country. One example, Sweden: > 23 kap. 12 § rättegångsbalken ( https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1 ) > Under förhör må ej i syfte att framkalla bekännelse eller uttalande i viss riktning användas medvetet oriktiga uppgifter, löften eller förespeglingar om särskilda förmåner, hot, tvång, uttröttning ell…

We are talking past each other. There are two truths: 1. It is forbidden by law in many places (including the US). 2. They will get away with it regardless, in nearly every case. So often that practically speaking it's allowed

> We are talking past each other.

Well, be more clear and maybe we could avoid it :) In some US states, the police are legally allowed to lie, it's not forbidden for them to do so. In some other states and outside countries, they are allowed, in others, they're not.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#73

Post by Arch-TK »

>This is an enormous abuse of human rights. The abuse of process in refusing both a lawyer and the right to remain silent, the inquiry into perfectly legal campaigning which is in no way terrorism-associated, the political questioning, the financial snooping and the seizure of material related to my private life, were all based on an utterly fake claim that I am associated with terrorism.

It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but when you enter the UK you give up your human rights. Easy mistake to make assuming you had those here.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#74

Post by mardifoufs »

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.

It's not like Israel was hiding that it was going for Gaza beforehand anyways.

https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-m...

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#75

Post by bawolff »

logicchains wrote: post #49
dgfitz wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed. You could make an argument for "occupied" (although that in itself is debatable post 2005), but "annexed" does not make sense.

For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#76

Post by semanticist »

londons_explore wrote: post #31
jasonjayr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?").

"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."

(The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights )

This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#77

Post by Arch-TK »

semanticist wrote: post #38
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/p…

>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.)

Every law in the UK is selectively enforced. Except maybe laws regarding speeding if they have evidence.

The laws in this country are so vague that I am certain that every adult has broken some of them.

If the Police don't like you, they just pick something vaguely relevant which you have probably broken and hassle you for it.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#78

Post by hef19898 »

mardifoufs wrote: post #67
hef19898 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yep, they literally announced that settlements will be back in force a few months ago. https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-m...

Man, Israel just not continuing this settlement policy would do so, so much to ease tension in the region. But taking real estate from other people by force became somewhat fashionable again.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#79

Post by skrebbel »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #59
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…

The UK is very worried about Scottish Independence. Mr Murray is a very vocal supporter of that, and an active figurehead in the independence movement. I don't know, but I'm assuming that his support of Hamas is a nice pretext for the British Establishment to have another pop at him. As we predicted when the UK proposed these monstrous laws: they are being abused to go after anyone who annoys the establishment. That'…

How does this look in practice? I’m not saying you’re wrong but your formulation suggests that some faceless people at the British Establishment Country Club put down their whiskeys, ordained that mr Murray be bullied and so it went.

That’s the stuff of movies and dictatorships, right? Do random UK civil servants really abuse the system to this extent for personal or political gain?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#80

Post by lucozade »

londons_explore wrote: post #31
jasonjayr wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?").

> in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases

That's if you've been arrested which doesn't apply in this case. He was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act which allows up to 6 hours of detention without cause and up to an hour without legal advice.

> During that time, ...then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt

I don't believe that's true in the case where legal advice has been restricted by the police. As per PACE Code C. It is however true if you have legal advice or if you've refused legal advice.

Edit: This last bit wrt PACE Code C applies to someone who is arrested. Under Section 7 it can be a criminal offence to not answer the examining officer's questions, as Craig Murray mentioned.

Post reply on HN