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

211–220 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#211

Post by Cthulhu_ »

rmbyrro wrote: post #121
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…

Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws. I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy. No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world". Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly…

They're not laws, they're the exemption of laws, just like outlaws - "a person declared as outside the protection of the law". Terrorist means you're not protected by the law, do not get rights, don't fall under the Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, etc. It means you get to go to Guantanamo Bay and rot for two decades without charge or anything.

But it's fine because it's the most powerful country in the world that does it. If anyone objects, they get dropped. If it comes to a vote in e.g. the UN security councel, they use their veto power.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#212

Post by hwillis »

xdennis wrote: post #136
marcus_holmes wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

[flagged]

Murray wrote Zionism is Bullshit in 2017. It's just as old as his pro-independence stuff.

> Humanity shouldn't wait for another holocaust.

Agreed. An international coalition must militarily intervene to repeal rules such as Military Order 158 (blocking construction of water infrastructure), rebuild important infrastructure (like the airport blown up by israel), restore critical life services like hospitals (which have been bombed 62 times), stop the murder of civilians, destroy checkpoints, walls, sniper nests and other infrastructure imprisoning the people who have lived here for millenia. The murder, displacement, apartheid, and genocide that has occurred for the past 70 years must be stopped before the terrorist ethnostate finally fills the last graves of those who did not flee their homes.

The people responsible for these atrocities -which stand alongside My Lai, the Rouge, Rwanda, the Kulaks, etc- must be held to an international trial, and should never see a life of freedom ever again. God forbid that the murder should escalate to the true eradication of the Gaza strip- if those millions were exterminated, there would truly be no event that could even be compared except for the Holocaust.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#213

Post by alistairSH »

denton-scratch wrote: post #185
alistairSH wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has the author done that? Hamas may be the ruling party, but there aren’t elections, so the people don’t have a choice. It’s further confused by the fact that Hamas is the government, so they also provide aid, run schools and hospitals, etc. Point being, there’s far more nuance to the whole situation than “Palestine bad.”

> but there aren’t elections Hamas was elected by the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, in Palestine-wide elections. Fatah immediately launched a coup attempt. That failed in Gaza, but succeeded in the West Bank. It's Fatah (Israel's preferred "negotiating" partner) that won't allow elections; Hamas could only hold an election in Gaza, not in the West Bank. Hamas has no desire to validate the claim tht Gaza and the We…

Regardless of who won't allow new elections, or why, the people don't have a say in their current government (short of internal revolution or similar).

So, like I said, there's a lot more nuance than many Americans recognize. That was my only point. And, based on the author's tweets (now shared in this thread), he actually does support Hamas, which based on British law (also shared in this thread) could actually be illegal.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#214

Post by Cthulhu_ »

denton-scratch wrote: post #118
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…

> you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment Yeah, but that involves a charge, and you get a lawyer. I would have refused to answer anything without first consulting a lawyer; I won't take legal advice from the investigating policeman. "You say I have to answer? Fine, I'll answer if my lawyer confirms that." What can go wrong? The worst that can happen is that they charge you (with something?) for refu…

Yeah but, you refuse to give the information, so that's a crime; even with a lawyer you're then liable for a maximum of two years imprisonment.

That's the fucker about these laws; in a lot of constitutions (note that the UK does not have a constitution so I'm not sure how it works over there), you have the right to not provide evidence that may lead to your conviction. But rules like this go counter to those.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#215

Post by bawolff »

mardifoufs wrote: post #63
logicchains wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Well, if you support Hamas after they butchered civilians Numerically speaking the IDF have killed a lot more civilians than Hamas. As have the US for that matter, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq.

Well, some lives matter more than the others. No one in the west cares about Palestinians. And the way people try to do blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Even Russia pretends that it isn't openly targeting civilians but again, Palestinian lives are basically worthless so it's just different :)

> blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine!

Umm, that's literally what distinguishes whether or not it is a war crime*?

Not saying you need to take israeli claims at face value - but if one side accuses the other side of a crime, and the other side says they didn't do it, generally the burden is on the first side to provide proof. Saying it doesn't matter whether or not they actually did it isn't the right response.

* technically its more complex than that. There are times where it could still be a war crime even if civilians weren't targeted specificly. What matters more is the balance between military benefit vs civilian damage.*

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#217

Post by PawgerZ »

diggan wrote: post #167
coldtea wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country. Probably because humans are not formal proof automata. When the parent said universal they meant "it is a thing across the world and across periods", and not "no X exists, where X is a country, and in X it's against the law".

Ah, maybe it's my non-native English-ness that shines through, but I've always understood "universal" as something implies like it is everyone, not "just in some places". So I could accurately say "English language is universal" even though there are countries where people generally don't speak English at all?

This would be an example of "absolutes." Using an absolute will usually make your sentence incorrect; "never" and "always" are rarely true. When writing something formal--essays, news, research papers--you should try not to use absolutes.

While absolutes shouldn't be used for formal writings, English speakers will very often use them in casual settings. I itallicized some spots where I could have used absolutes, and if you replace those words with "never" or "always", I think you'll understand what I'm saying better.

> "English language is universal"

This is an absolute or hypberbole, but most native speakers will understand what the author meant by that.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#218

Post by kamranjon »

While I think this could be an overstep, I think the author is quite obviously withholding some important context here. Why would they not show the tweet referenced here?

“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.”

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#219

Post by hef19898 »

bawolff wrote: post #203
hef19898 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Civilian infrastructure and housing are decidedly no legitimate milotary targets. Never have been, and this makes air power such a bad choice when fighting insurgencies, it is to indiscriminate.

Whether or not it is a legit legal military target depends on if it is being used for a military purposes and how "porportional" the military benefit of targeting it is relitive to the civilian damage targeting it would cause. The idea that if someone converts a house into an ammunition store depot it can never be targeted ever under international law is just straight up wrong. Of course how that translates to what i…

You make the point about fighting insurgencies and guerilla opponents being so damn hard very well, I think. Not the least beimg, that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent.

Regarding the house being an ammunition depot: Sure, legitimate target. Blowing up the whole highrise, debatable. Blowing up the neighbouring highrise, even more debatable. And airstrikes are nowhere precise enough for that kind of work.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#220

Post by Cthulhu_ »

jules-jules wrote: post #209
refaelv wrote: post #12

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

By that logic, the following applies, too. > people forget (or likely don’t even know) that, when Israel was not yet in a position of asymmetric power and secure statehood, Israeli paramilitaries often committed terror attacks which are indistinguishable from what we have seen Hamas do in recent decades. Deir Yassin, the King David Hotel Bombing, al-Husayniyya Safad, and so on. Now they do not have the need for such…

That's whataboutism; although it's true that there are no "good" sides in this conflict, the issue here is that supporting Israel is fine, but supporting Hamas is not because they have been declared a terrorist organization.

Nobody's going to get in trouble for opposing the conflict, or pointing out civilian casualties, displacement, war crimes, etc. But you WILL get on a List if you support Hamas in any way shape or form. Pick your battles, know the risk. Yeah it's not fair, just or morally correct, but this is the reality of things.

Post reply on HN