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

451–460 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#451

Post by gloosx »

neilwilson wrote: post #427
gloosx wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The least bad system in the worst constraints, where all people must be labelled by blood or soil of origin and moving around is a privilege. The best illusion of control engineered however

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#452

Post by grecy »

lucubratory wrote: post #382
breakpointalpha wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last sentence of section 39 makes it look like all you have to do is remain silent for 6 hours to be released. I'm not a lawyer.

Refusing to answer the questions is a crime. Once you've committed a crime, the examination part can give way to the "You're under arrest" part.

> give way to the "You're under arrest" part.

At least then you get a lawyer, and don't have to say anything, and don't have to give any passwords

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#453

Post by grecy »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #228

I get the impression that the way the law was being interpreted was that there is a window of one hour in which: a) in which one does not have the right to remain silent AND b) one doesn't have the right to a lawyer. 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 tex…

> there is a window of one hour in which:

It could be interesting to simply waste time for that hour, while still being co-operative. Answer extraordinarily slowly, be as verbose as possible, go on as many tangents as possible and go into as much detail on your first answer as you possibly can imagine, so the first answer takes the entire hour.

You're still being co operative and answering questions, they just run out of time before you get a lawyer or they cut you loose.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#454

Post by brewtide »

KenArrari wrote: post #449
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 ran into a similar problem entering the US on a ferry from the Bahamas. I think I may have been misled but apparently if you're on the border you aren't allowed to refuse to talk/refuse searches/etc. So they forced me to search my phone and spent about 6 hours interrogating me about my political opinions, family history, etc.

I think it's like 200 miles from any boarder, including the coastline.

Ie. It can be very broadly abused.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#455

Post by lmm »

bawolff wrote: post #361
lmm wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 nu…

> 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

AIUI colonists usually tend to be at least partly fleeing bad situations at home - occasionally nothing more than a lack of opportunity, but often debts, criminal records and the like.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#456

Post by coolThingsFirst »

boppo1 wrote: post #431
coolThingsFirst wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is 4chan so dangerous? Isnt it just an image board?

It's kinda like reddit in that there's multiple boards with a broad array of topics. A few of the boards regularly have threads with pretty extreme racism/hate. Recently the president of a Detroit synagogue was stabbed to death outside her home and there were multiple threads openly celebrating the murder. But elsewhere on the site people are sharing clips of cute cows doing cute cow things. As a more specific exampl…

Why would that implicate you on terrorism charges?

You aren't responsible for what people post online. Anyone can post anything on a forum and you may be looking at it because of other interesting stuff doesn't mean you have bad intentions.

I think it's mainly paranoia, I still think the odds of falsely being charged with terrorism are incredibly low.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#457

Post by bawolff »

sneak wrote: post #367
bawolff wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

i would think it more grows out of the distinction between first degree murder and either self-defense or involuntary manslaughter we find in ordinary laws.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#458

Post by sobkas »

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.

> "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.

In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#459

Post by dragonwriter »

sobkas wrote: post #458
t0bia_s wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

> "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. In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.

> In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think.

This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#460

Post by sterlind »

shiroiuma wrote: post #401
hef19898 wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Egypt isn't getting the same crticism because: a) they never occupied Gaza to begin with b) they have yet to bomb Gaza Egypt gets the same criticism when it comes to the embargoe so. But you know who is stopping Egypt from annexing (interesting choice of words, by the way) Gaza? Israel. And you actually have not the slightest idea what apartheid is and how it works.

a) Egypt used to own Gaza (they lost it in a war they started, along with a big chunk of Sinai, which was later returned in a peace deal) b) Gaza doesn't shoot rockets into Egypt regularly, so of course they don't bomb them c) I've never seen it d) Last I heard, Israel tried to get Egypt to take Gaza back. How is Israel preventing Egypt from taking them? I do know what apartheid is: it's what happened in South Africa…

> I do know what apartheid is: it's what happened in South Africa, when two groups of people lived in the very same place (i.e., in the same towns and cities) and were treated differently by the state.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bantustan

> The Pretoria government established ten Bantustans in South Africa, and ten in neighbouring South West Africa (then under South African administration), for the purpose of concentrating the members of designated ethnic groups, thus making each of those territories ethnically homogeneous as the basis for creating autonomous nation states for South Africa's different black ethnic groups. Under the Bantu Homelands Citizenship Act of 1970, the government stripped black South Africans of their South African citizenship, depriving them of their few remaining political and civil rights in South Africa, and declared them to be citizens of these homelands.[3]

The Jim Crow era was very different from apartheid. There was redlining and segregation, but African Americans weren't stripped of citizenship and marshaled into enclaves the way South Africa did with the Bantustans and their Citizenship Act. Apartheid means "kept apart," South Africa, like Israel, sequestered its undesirables into enclaves.

Post reply on HN