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

101–110 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#101

Post by scarmig »

Disgusting.

If I went out and suggested that the families of the politicians who did this should be kidnapped, held by force for hours without any contact with the outside world, and have all their possessions stolen, I'd be rightly condemned all around. Hell, even if I suggested one of the politicians who conceived this should be abducted by goons and abused for hours on end, I'd probably be indicted under some terrorist act or another.

And perhaps I should be: it's a deep depravity what happened here, and I'm deeply ashamed it happens anywhere, let alone in the Western world. Soon we won't be able to hold ourselves up as beacons of freedom to those in savage, barbaric places like China where all Internet usage is surveilled or Russia where you can be targeted for being gay or being a member of the press who has printed stories critical of the State.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#102

Post by rolux »

jacquesm wrote: post #92
acabal wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

Making an example of a family member is crass to put it mildly, we have a basic principle in law that collective punishment is right out. So we don't punish you for your brothers crimes and so on. To punish a partner for some perceived slight when the principal agent is not charged with anything is something that I have a hard time imagining even today, in a former Soviet Union or affiliated country I could see somet…

My hope is that Greenwald is not that easily provoked into making this a personal affair between himself and some government. That's part of what weakened Julian Assange's position, and I'm pretty sure Greenwald is aware of that.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#104

Post by anigbrowl »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #69
rmc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. You haven't read up much history of Northern Ireland? There is a lots of examples of the UK and anti-terrorism laws. Imprisonment without trial, etc.

I was born in Northern Ireland and have lived here all but 6 months of my life so I'm very familiar with it :)

Then how can you make out that you're shocked by this? People who are arrested on suspicion of terrorism in the UK can be held for 28 days with out charge. From the 70s onward, anyone arrested in relation to Northern Irish terrorism could be held for 48 hours without charge. Holding someone incommunicado for up to 9 hours sounds like a distinct improvement by UK standards, sad to say.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_legislation#Unit...

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#105

Post by u2328 »

icambron wrote: post #74

If you were one of those people who still -- after all this time -- says things like, "it's OK, [insert law] is only for acts of terrorism", now would be a good time to reconsider that. Or issues of national security or state emergencies or...

It's mission creep. Law enforcement will always demand more power in pursuit of what they see as their goal of stopping the bad guys. Trampling all over innocent peoples' civil liberties is unfortunate to them, but they will never cease their pursuit for more power. Have you heard Ray Kelly's argument in defense of stop-and-frisk? "We do this to protect minorities! It's for their own good!" without any mention or even a passing courtesy to said minority's civil rights.

Actually, I can think of one area that probably won't be receiving all the extra scrutiny that the rest of us have been enjoying in new found police state, and that's Wall Street. Someone's gotta pay for all those toys cops have been buying lately.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#106

Post by anigbrowl »

rolux wrote: post #18
throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #12

Greenwald just posted his own account: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000." D…

Quote: "Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they feel threatened by."

This sort of thing is why I have a hard time taking Glenn Greenwald at face value. He's a well-educated person who clearly knows that such statements are nonsense.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#107

Post by superuser2 »

midhir wrote: post #43

About two or three years ago I was taken aside when boarding a plane at a London airport back to Belfast by a policeman and held under their terrorism legislation. Being heavily hungover from a night spent funding London's publicans, and a little nervous about flying, I just wanted to board the plane and go home. Nevertheless, I was questioned by the queue as others boarded the plane, casting nasty looks my way. The…

From TFA, one has no rights in this situation. Failure to cooperate with questioning is a crime.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#108

Post by corin_ »

icambron wrote: post #63
k-mcgrady wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This could be unrelated to the US as details of UK spying were also released.

As I understand it, UK and USA spying are part of a well-connected system also including Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. I'm not sure there are relevant distinctions to be made here in terms of spying.

k-mcgrady wasn't making distinctions about spying, he was making distinctions about who decided to detain someone in a British airport - the fact that the UK has been affected by the NSA leaks means they have as much motivation here as the US does.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#109

Post by Amadou »

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 think it is quite possible that it was clerical.

Some nameless official put anyone plausibly close to Snowden on one of however many "people of interest" type lists the UK has. It might even be a trickle down from some list in the USA. The original list may not even be intended as a "detain this person" list, but the way these secret lists work sourcing from other lists with different intents means the end result isn't necessarily the intended result.

Tyranny through bureaucracy basically. A little bit ironic what with the guy being Brazilian and Terry Gilliam's opus Brazil dealing with basically the same theme.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#110

Post by scarmig »

straight_talk_2 wrote: post #46
danenania wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, we aren't powerless. That's why these people are so relentless in their intimidation and pursuit of more power. If they thought we were powerless, they wouldn't bother. They are afraid, and they should be. The tide can turn quickly.

Maybe it can still turn, but definitely not quickly. It will take a huge amount of effort and blood to take the power away from the sociopath banksters and their puppet politicians, military and media. IMHO it is very unlikely as very few people in the developed countries today care about political power and modern weapons, like drones and PRISM, are very anti-democratic in nature.

It's easy to come up with a monocausal explanation of all that's wrong in today's society. But that doesn't correspond to reality, and propagating it does nothing but encourage people to build strategies on false premises.

Those "sociopath banksters" might have a long list of sins and villainies, but that doesn't mean that they're the ones at fault here. Oppression is a system, not a rational order directed by a single person or group. I would not be surprised if a poll of your "banksters" revealed a far higher level of personal support for civil liberties than the average citizen. There's no reason to suppose that they want or have any interest in living in a world where the State can seize and steal the property of someone with no trial or opportunity for appeal.

Post reply on HN