I face investigation for terrorism • Hacker News Board

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#341

Post by anonzzzies » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

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'…

Pro Palestine doesn’t necessarily mean pro Hamas. It usually doesn’t, but of course some people (pro Israel usually) always manipulate/turn it that way. So please let us know where it shows he is pro Hamas vs pro Palestine (and actually against Hamas, which is what I would expect he is).

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#342

Post by yutyut » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 5:14 AM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #335

bawolff wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's claiming that it is justified because israel might commit genocide at some unspecified time in the future, despite that being unlikely. It seems like a rediculous argument to me. Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. It seems more an attempt to deflect the criticism that hamas has comitted genocide. Was 9/11 justified because america might commit genocid…

Unlikely? The UN have already issued a warning: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...

This article is headlined and leads with an accusation about the recent hospital tragedy being due to an Israeli air strike. I believe that the preponderance of sources (neutral or otherwise) have attributed that explosion to a malfunctioning PIJ/Hamas rocket or missile .

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#343

Post by extraduder_ire » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 5:19 AM UTC

foobarian wrote: post #306

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?

The "UK constitution" is a wide set of documents, both laws (some really old) and legal precedent that determine how the country's supposed to operate.

The main concept is "parliamentary supremacy", which means that the parliament (house of commons/lords) can pass any law except one that would bind their action in future. Basically, they can pass whatever law they want, and pass a law repealing it later. The expectation is that they wouldn't do anything too heinous because reasons. The idea that the monarch can forcibly disband parliament doesn't really exist anymore. (although, some laws occasionally do get blocked by that apparatus)

I learned way too much about this while their high court was deciding on the constitutionality of the process of leaving the EU. I wonder how much of it is baby-duck syndrome, but I love living in a republic.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#344

Post by bawolff » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 5:22 AM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #335

bawolff wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's claiming that it is justified because israel might commit genocide at some unspecified time in the future, despite that being unlikely. It seems like a rediculous argument to me. Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. It seems more an attempt to deflect the criticism that hamas has comitted genocide. Was 9/11 justified because america might commit genocid…

Unlikely? The UN have already issued a warning: https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...

The press release is kind of undermined by using as its premise that israel targeted Al Ahli Arab Hospital despite there being significant evidence that it was actually a Palestinian group that did that.

The article doesn't seem to be using an evidence based approach.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#345

Post by bawolff » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 5:38 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #329

bawolff wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes even less sense. To annex something means to add it to an existing state. Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. The UK controlled the area at the time, but they basically gave up and left. I don't understand how you could say they were annexing it at this point in time either. Israel is closer to being a succesor state to mandatory palestine than anything else. Generally internationa…

> Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. That seems like a purely semantic argument. If a bunch of people from a particular political movement show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation, whether that nation is completely new or existing doesn't change the morality of that anywhere. E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognis…

> E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it.

I'm under the impression it is seen as occupation (not annexation) by russia with a thin vaneer over top. You still have a separate state being involved, with russia arguably continuing to be in control.

> That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.

Well there was significant migration to the area in the lead up, its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence. From what i understand there was a continous jewish presence in the region throughout history, albeit at various point as a much smaller minority.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#346

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 5:40 AM UTC

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #214

denton-scratch wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#347

Post by lmm » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 5:57 AM UTC

bawolff wrote: post #345

lmm wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. That seems like a purely semantic argument. If a bunch of people from a particular political movement show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation, whether that nation is completely new or existing doesn't change the morality of that anywhere. E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognis…

> E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it. I'm under the impression it is seen as occupation (not annexation) by russia with a thin vaneer over top. You still have a separate state being involved, with russia arguably continuing to be in control. > That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory…

> its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence

AIUI it pretty much was; yes the zionist movement existed to a certain extent before WW2, but the overwhelming majority of jewish people living on the territory of Palestine in 1948 had moved there at most a few years before (with a huge increase in those who felt the desire or need to move there as persecution escalated in Europe in the 1930s and ultimately lead to the holocaust).

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#348

Post by bratbag » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 6:16 AM UTC

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…

That was always the case. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this situation now.

Rights are arbitrary limits made up by people which can be changed or eliminated by people. Nothing more, nothing less.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#349

Post by __turbobrew__ » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 6:20 AM UTC

kossTKR wrote: post #120

ImaCake wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you in the USA? Apparently the american media is particularly pro-israel. I am in Australia and find the media is very pro-israel but is happy to also say that israel’s actions are unsavory. I understand that Europe is much more balanced than Australia on this one.

Great question, i'm in a scandinavian country that is what is so surprising to me. I have family both here in the US and the UK, and everywhere seems to be the same. It's almost like there's been some secret doctrine implemented. As an example the "relatively" moderate labour parties of both Denmark and the UK as come out as pretty extreme militaristic hardliner supporters of Israel doubting the effectiveness of ceas…

If you compare how many Palestinians are in power positions globally vs how many Israelis are in power positions globally it makes sense.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#350

Post by ornornor » Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 6:21 AM UTC

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…

The UK is the epitome of a surveillance society. It’s very creepy. Cctv everywhere, no right to silence or counsel because terrorism… it’s a surveillance state.