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

421–430 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#421

Post by ahoka »

lmm wrote: post #323
SemioticStandrd wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can’t be that naive, can you? It’s obviously not the Tweet they’re worried about. They think the Tweet is indication that he supports Hamas enough to aid or promote them secretly. “If this guy is this outspoken publicly for his support of Hamas, what must he be doing to support them behind closed doors? Does he donate to them? Organize for them?” Whether or not that’s enough to search him is another debate, but t…

> They think the Tweet is indication that he supports Hamas enough to aid or promote them secretly. “If this guy is this outspoken publicly for his support of Hamas, what must he be doing to support them behind closed doors? Does he donate to them? Organize for them?” If they think that then why just him and not the thousands of other people tweeting similar things? The thought process is evidently "oh, it's that blo…

Probably if Mary-Sue from Idaho, a shop clerk tweets this it’s not exactly the same if a former diplomat with international connections and public influence does it?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#422

Post by vintermann »

kmlx wrote: post #403
MyFirstSass wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Looks more to me like he's a human rights activist that has been targeted by the security state as Naom Chomsky et. al comments in the just posted article. His own comments are about desperate measures when carpet bombed. That you want to swiftly send him to jail tells me totalitarianism is becoming fashionable again.

> That you want to swiftly send him to jail tells me totalitarianism is becoming fashionable again. where did i write that? he'll have a fair trial according to the law. he can then convince the judge he doesn't actually support a terrorist organisation (as it's illegal to do that in the UK).

> he'll have a fair trial according to the law.

Yes, according to the law, his trial will be fair. The law doesn't around admitting it isn't fair.

But what do you know, I looked under the robe and wig of the law, and would you believe it was just a person! An ugly, naked, shameless person at that.

In reality, there will be no fairness if smirking people like you get your way.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#423

Post by Laforet »

lilsoso wrote: post #283
Laforet wrote: post #56

Arbitrary search and seizure at the border has been a steady feature in western countries for, like, the solid part of the past two decade. I have travelled to the USA three times during this period and during every single visit I had been pulled aside by the TSA for extra screening (SSSS). In the last 5 years or so when I return to my home country of New Zealand, I have been repeatedly searched by customs which has…

While scanning your comment history looking for unusual interests, I found an intriguing comment that's unrelated to this topic: "Cash is already heavily monitored and most petty criminals have already moved on to Amazon gift cards." Can you describe what you mean when you say cash is heavily monitored?

Before computerization of the finance industry, banks used to keep stashes of "ransom money" with all serial numbers already recorded so they could be tracked to some extent. This is no longer necessary as modern money handling equipment makes it trivial to keep a detailed log of every single bill they receive or give out.

And what if you forgo banks entirely? Well, governments have also been legislating to slowly stigmatize cash use. Google "civil forfeiture" and you will find countless examples of the police taking people's money away without due process, as if carrying large amounts of cash itself is a crime.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#424

Post by woooooo »

shiroiuma wrote: post #376
hef19898 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much self government do you really have when you are under embargoe by all neighbouring states, are not recognized as sovereign nation and depend dor basix essentials (water, fuel...) on the former occupier? It is an occupation by all measures but name.

How is it Israel's fault that they're embargoed by other neighboring states? And what's been keeping all the other states from supplying those basic essentials? Last I heard, they got a lot of humanitarian supplies from many other countries worldwide, even as far away as Japan. AFAICT, Israel would rather just not deal with them at all. Countries shouldn't be forced to annex their neighbors and administer them. Didn'…

The only other neighboring state is Egypt and they get billions of dollars a year from the US as a condition of their peace with Israel.

Between that and the blockade of their coast, they're 100% sealed off from any trade, fishing or immigration that Israel doesn't choose to allow.

Maybe "occupation" isn't the right word but they don't get to act like an independent state.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#425

Post by _kbh_ »

logicchains wrote: post #179
dash2 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot believe I have to say this. No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents is not a "counter-attack", nor is it "resistance". This statement is actively evil.

>No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents There's absolutely no evidence this happened.

> There's absolutely no evidence this happened.

There's evidence that Hamas beheaded children I haven't seen any evidence they tortured them infant of their parents.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#426

Post by neilwilson »

OhioMan2943 wrote: post #369
neilwilson wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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

The House of Lords has no capacity to stop legislation that the House of Commons is determined to pass. Only the capacity to delay it.

That's why an appointed chamber works. They have no mandate and no legitimacy to do anything other than suggest.

And which then stops the stalemate you get in other systems with multiple conflicting mandates.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#427

Post by neilwilson »

gloosx wrote: post #362
neilwilson wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

We have to decide. It is the least bad system.

Far better we are all involved, even if just notionally, than have it handed down by self-appointed betters.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#428

Post by mikrl »

t0bia_s wrote: post #267
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…

"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.

Ok but I remember a few occasions where people have got off easy for being ignorant of the law.

I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent”

If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#429

Post by sixhobbits »

I hope that stories like this make people realise the rights that they have given up and start campaigning and voting to get them back again.

Terrorism laws are so obviously hugely disproportionate to what they allegedly protect against at this point.

Governments should balance two kinds of freedom. "freedom to (do as we please)" and "freedom from (others harming us)".

If these terrorism laws were really about protecting "freedom from" then they would also have a blanket ban on cars, guns, knives, alcohol and tobacco, all of which cause orders of magnitude more harm. Of course bans like that have been historically attempted and populations very clearly told Governments attempting to enforce them in which direction to fuck off to.

But these kind of abuses are a lot easier for people to ignore when they always happen to "someone else" but "probably will never happen to me".

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#430

Post by boffinAudio »

credit_guy wrote: post #406
boffinAudio wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The exception is that the airport is not a part of the UK sovereign territory, but is rather considered an extra-territorial possession of the UK, akin to a colony, which can be governed separately.

Thank you. I guess that could be the explanation. Still, it's strange that you could be "detained" and interrogated and not be allowed to see your lawyer, and not have the right to remain silent. In the US I would expect to retain all my rights even if I travel to the US Virgin Islands, for example, even if these islands are not part of any state.

AFAIK, the same is true of the USA: its international airports are extra-territorial possessions in which the USA is not obligated to enforce its human rights agreements ...
Post reply on HN