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

361–370 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#361

Post by bawolff »

lmm wrote: post #347
bawolff wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 a…

It seems like firm numbers are pretty hard to find, but wikipedia suggests there was significant jewish population concentrated in Jerusalem, even in the early 1500s (about 20% of the city) with conflicting reports of them becoming a plurality in the mid 1800s. (Arguably that's cherrypicking a single city)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusal...

There's certainly reasons one could doubt the number in absolute terms, there was certainly nothing like a modern census, but i think its more than enough to counter the narrative that there were no jews there right up until just before 1948.

To be clear not saying the jewish population didn't significantly expand in the 40's, it clearly did (at the same time many of those were basically forced from their previous homes, which i don't think fits with the "colonist" metaphor as that usually implies more choice), just that there were always jews in the region.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#362

Post by gloosx »

neilwilson wrote: post #357
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…

"I cannot understand how this is legal." It's legal because Parliament passed the legislation. Anything Parliament passes is legal. It's the very definition of legal. Those who don't like that need to get the relevant people elected and change the law. It's not a difficult system. We all have a vote. There is no legal god in the British system and we recognise no external one. It's all down to the British people and…

Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, very simple and fair system! In the end society was not able to come up with anything better than a twitter poll to decide their destiny.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#363

Post by toyg »

ignoramous wrote: post #285
Arch-TK wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

> The laws in this country are so vague that I am certain that every adult has broken some of them. Sounds like India learnt a thing or two from the British, here.

It's just always been the case, everywhere. The history of Law is effectively about the powerless (or rather the less-powerful) slowly carving out all circumstances in which they cannot be thrown in prison on a whim.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#364

Post by OhioMan2943 »

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…

Is there any 'legal' way to get around sharing a password if asked to?

I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else.

Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#365

Post by scotty79 »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #360
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…

What if he remained silent?

I don't know. He said it's a crime. What usually happens when you commit a crime in the presence of the police?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#366

Post by bainsfather »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #360
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…

What if he remained silent?

2 years in prison, as I understand it.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#367

Post by sneak »

bawolff wrote: post #111
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.

> 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. I don't know why "numerically" matters. There is a big difference morally between someone accidentally killed while persuing a legal military target, and intentionally gunning down a rave or children at a day care.

> There is a big difference morally between someone accidentally killed while persuing a legal military target, and intentionally gunning down a rave or children at a day care.

Not all of us agree with this. The idea of “legal military target” grows out of the idea of “just war”, which many of us reject outright.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#368

Post by toyg »

bawolff wrote: post #96
TheDong wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In other words, he opposes war except when he agrees with it. Even the most hawkish person would probably say the same thing. "War is terrible except when i think one side is justified" is hardly a pacifist take.

Even Gandhi allowed for armed conflict where there is no peaceful alternative, and Nelson Mandela was in a paramilitary group.

The difference between a pacifist and a hawk is the frequency of such appeals and the definition of its necessity.

I've always been a pacifist, but I struggle to condemn the actions of a populace that has now been subjected to brutal apartheid conditions for several generations.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#369

Post by OhioMan2943 »

neilwilson wrote: post #357
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…

"I cannot understand how this is legal." It's legal because Parliament passed the legislation. Anything Parliament passes is legal. It's the very definition of legal. Those who don't like that need to get the relevant people elected and change the law. It's not a difficult system. We all have a vote. There is no legal god in the British system and we recognise no external one. It's all down to the British people and…

Except for the fact that the house of lords is a lifelong appointment and people have taken cash bribes for appointments. Which is the very definition of undemocratic

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#370

Post by toyg »

xdennis wrote: post #256
cheeseomlit wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't the Philistines in the old testament the ancestors of the Palestinians? Meaning they were there first presumably, since the Israelites had to fight them to take the region in the first place

The Philistines settled in a small part of modern Israel at around 1175 BC, and disappeared (were assimilated) by the 5th century BC. Roman Judea was renamed to Palestine in 135 AD (after the Philistines) by the Romans after numerous revolts by the Jews attempting to overthrow their colonizers. It was freed from Roman colonialism in 634 AD... by being colonized by Arabs. Many empires colonized it afterwards, the last…

When you have to go back 1300 years to justify an apartheid regime, maybe you should ask yourself a few questions.
Post reply on HN