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

301–310 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#301

Post by mikrotikker »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #277
rmbyrro wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I agree with you in general, but regarding this specific phrase in this specific context: > Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws. Unless I misunderstand the legislative history, the law that was used here (Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000) dates from July 2000, so before 9/11. Still part of the same trend as what happened after 9/11, of course, bu…

Yes they took legislation Joe Biden wrote and tweaked it a little which is why they came up with the patriot Act so quickly following the attacks.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#302

Post by autoexec »

fullarr wrote: post #45
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…

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

Far more likely that you'd just bankrupt your family, lose your home and your job, only to have the courts uphold that same unconstitutional law. I'd respect the hell of anyone who tried and sacrificed everything they had to force the courts to confirm that the constitution is being ignored to satisfy an oppressive and power hungry government, but I sure as hell wouldn't recommend it or be able/willing to myself.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#303

Post by autoexec »

gambiting wrote: post #48
op00to wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Those are the kinds of cases that should be handled through jury nullification - too bad it's a crime to explain that right and how it should be used to jurors.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#304

Post by mikrotikker »

soco wrote: post #198
rmbyrro wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Basically agreeing with you, I want only to add that I don't believe it was freer earlier - just people less informed.

FISA and the patriot Act and NSLs did not increase the freedom did they?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#305

Post by Stevvo »

starik36 wrote: post #291
denton-scratch wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I understand that Europe is much more balanced than Australia on this one. I'm in the UK. It depends what you mean by "balanced". What I'm seeing on TV news has been changing. At first, they didn't try to link Hamas to terrorism. They've been berated by Israelis for that; so now every time they mention Hamas, they add a clause like "Hamas, an organisation that is proscribed in the UK and many other countries for te…

Which Israeli leader called for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza? I haven't heard or read any of that.

https://twitter.com/MisgavINS/status/1714183691574948036 Think tank of a former PM.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#306

Post by foobarian »

credit_guy wrote: post #239

Maybe some lawyer can explain to some complete noobie. I thought you always have the right to not answer any questions until you have your lawyer present, and that you have the right to that one phone call to a lawyer. My knowledge comes entirely from movies and novels. I understand that there could be exceptions, but what is the basic rationale of the exception here? The UK is a country of laws, and generally the la…

That's probably very US centric given how much TV comes from there. Does the UK even have a constitution or does the buck stop with the monarch?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#307

Post by ignoramous »

bawolff wrote: post #265
hef19898 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them. That makes fighting them a police action, one that has to follow basic human rights (detention, fair trials, the works). Unless you are fine being the baddy, in which case go full out Soviet Uniom in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam or SS on the Eastern Front rear…

> Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them ??? I don't think that follows. What is your basis for this.

(not my view) What OP means is you don't bring an airforce and a navy and an army to a gang fight, unless of course you're okay with destruction of urban areas.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#308

Post by njharman »

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.

Step one; get overreaching, extreme powers passed into law because they'll only be used to fight "terrorism".

Step two; redefine everything as terrorism.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#309

Post by enasterosophes »

remram wrote: post #287
enasterosophes wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maximum of two years, in practice means you'll be out in a few months on probation. You'll keep most of your life and get a story to tell for the rest of it. Worth calling their bluff, I reckon.

Months in prison is worth what now? You're gonna leave your family, lose your job, have to explain to everybody you know that you were in jail for a while. For a good story?

Possible months, for a new experience, and perhaps the consequences aren't so catastrophic. Lots of people go to jail and live long and happy lives afterwards.

Don't live in fear, that is not worth it.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#310

Post by cataphract »

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…

It's not. That's why the UK has had losses related with this acts in the European Court of Human Rights. See e.g. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-191276
Post reply on HN