221–230 of 530 posts
If you travel a lot it makes sense to have a basic virgin phone and laptop hooked up to minimal accounts.
And don't travel to Europe, the US or Israel if you've openly supported a terrorist organization.
> 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'.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Antisemitic = I have problems with jewish people
Anti-zionism = I have problems with the colonization of Israel and the displacement and murder of its Palestinian population
Anti-Israel = I have problems with the state of Israel's treatment of the Palestinian population and its policies when it comes to Palestinian territory.
Know the difference. It's OK to oppose morally indefensible actions and policies.
>I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this. It is a real atrocity that most devices are unable to lie for us when a wrong password is typed and create a mock profile to waste time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
True, but I think that's more due to the age of the state than the geographic location. Israel is very young and was founded on land that already had a lot of people living there. Now they're mostly gone and Israel is declaring that it exists solely for the non-native inhabitants. Let's translate that into American terms so it's more understandable. What if the entire history of US settlement and expansion, from 1600…
Many of the people already living there were Jews. Many - about half IIRC - of the people who came there afterwards were refugees from surrounding Arab countries. What better demonstration could there have been that the Jewish people need a safe haven? Well, I can think of a better demonstration, because we saw it two weeks ago.
A good introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGVgjS98OsU
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 prov…
Russia pays complete lip service to always trying to make it look like they don't attack civilians (they do) yet are unequivocally accused of war crimes (as they should be).
It got to a point where Israeli officials had no problem publically declaring thinly veiled threats of extermination like:
>On October 10th an Israeli official told a television station: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.” Daniel Hagari, an idf spokesperson, boasted that “hundreds of tons of bombs” had been dropped on Gaza. Then, he added: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”
Again, only a western ally could get away with this with such a massive support at all level from all western countries after such statements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511
What did it say? Tweet seemingly was removed.
Craig Murray - @CraigMurrayOrg To be entirely plain. 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. If that is a crime, send me back to jail. 7:24 PM · Oct 14, 2023 · 167.9K Views
a) in which one does not have the right to remain silent
AND
I could imagine a potential world in which one or the other might briefly apply, but both together would be a complete license for abuse of course. So that can't be entirely right.
Reading the actual text of the law [1] I can't quite see how that would be the intended interpretation. I hope someone with more knowledge of British Law can clarify.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
(edited for clarity)
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?").
The "we can infer guilt" seems to be more because there's a bunch of corner cases where an absolute right to silence CAN have kind of stupid outcomes. Many countries choose to accept those outcomes because they don't want to convict the innocent. Britain -otoh- seems to try to thread the needle here by giving the judge a bit of leeway.
But I'm not an expert on british law. I just online-searched the the heck out of it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"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 silen…
Except (as I hear it) that's not even true in the US. Apparently, it's not enough to stay silent - you actually have to say that you are exercising the right to be silent, otherwise they are allowed to infer guilt from silence. In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to t…
Except if questioned under schedule 7 of the terrorism act of 2000, maybe.
IANAL. Ask an actual lawyer for advice!