Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#71

Post by davidw »

jlgreco wrote: post #44
ams6110 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come again? I thought threatening one's family was #1 in the mafia playbook.

Obviously that depends on the mafia, and the era. Hard to make broad statements about "the" mafia.

The Sicilian Mafia are pretty vile human beings, by and large.

Compare and contrast "detained 9 hours", which is a big violation of civil liberties on behalf of a government, with "dissolved an innocent child in acid", which is just sickening and inhuman.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Giuseppe_Di_Matteo

Not to say at all that what the government did in this case was "not so bad", just that there is worse out there.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#72

Post by acabal »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
grey-area wrote: post #22

The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this: They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. [1] This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism lik…

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane. Taking into account that the UK law enfor…

I was thinking about this today--whether or not this was a smart move for the government.

On one hand, it's obvious that bullying the partner of a famous journalist is going to get negative media attention.

On the other hand, maybe that's exactly what they want. Maybe they know these laws aren't going anywhere anytime soon, and that sort of media attention ensures that generations will know what happens when they start asking the wrong questions. "Hey kids, just look at what will happen to your family if you start questioning the laws we make to protect you."

Would Greenwald have done a better service if he hadn't told the world what happened to his partner? I don't know--but maybe.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#73

Post by jacquesm »

[deleted] wrote: post #64

[deleted]

Because it was killed or because it is being resubmitted very frequently from a source that is dead.

That's not the first time I see an article with that many upvotes dead. Was it 'not dead' first? If so then it was a moderation action.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#75

Post by rolux »

jacquesm wrote: post #50
grey-area wrote: post #22

The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this: They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name. [1] This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism lik…

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane. Taking into account that the UK law enfor…

Diversion of a plane carrying a head of state, to be precise.

But yeah, it's not easy to imagine how such decisions are made. Of course, it's one of the features of authoritarianism that the display of authority trumps "tactical mistakes". But it's people who give such orders, not "authoritarianism". The simplistic explanation would be to state they're "pissed off". But maybe reality is quite close to that. By arresting Greenwald's partner, the UK authorities primarily demonstrate, to themselves, that they still hold certain powers -- and I wouldn't underestimate the self-motivational dimension of such a demonstration.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#76

Post by Tossrock »

u2328 wrote: post #53
gknoy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point: we already know they are watching, and that we are all on the list.

How very 20th Century of you. We're all in the database; much more efficient.

Well, a table is conceptually equivalent to a list of rows

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#77

Post by muzz »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #3

I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning. Edit: shocked is probably the wrong word it's hard to get surprised by this stuff anymore.

After 9/11, many people were detained for a lot longer than 9 hours [1]

If only the same outrage that exists now, existed back then...

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/national/25DETA.html

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#78

Post by mythz »

straight_talk_2 wrote: post #57
mythz wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not clear yet, if its a national issue each side can make their position known and back it up with planned reforms. The one thing that is clear is that we shouldn't expect change under an Obama administration.

Are you really that naive as to expect change under the next democrat|republican administrations?

You've confused hope with naivety, where there is none.

Election time is the best time for reform, i.e. where the democratic process has the most influence.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#79

Post by jacquesm »

acqq wrote: post #67
jacquesm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane. Taking into account that the UK law enfor…

They were able to do two things: 1) Spend 9 hours pressing the guy in order to learn any details they are interested in. He was probably not prepared enough for that, most of people aren't. Apparently, in such an occasion you don't even have the "right to remain silent!" That is, Mr. David Miranda had no Miranda rights there. I guess they had a good laugh. 2) Get anything from the electronic devices. It's reasonable…

1) That's a huge assumption. Especially given that he went to see Laura Poitras

2) Sure, but for that they didn't need to seize them, they could have copied them. I take it that Greenwald et al are smart enough to use an encrypted dead drop on the net rather than to hand-carry unencrypted bits with the keys in the head or the possession of the carrier.

From the government perspective I can see only bad stuff coming from this, it is a very clear abuse of the law, it will take a lot of tapdancing to explain this one away as a rogue employee.

Post reply on HN