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

111–120 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#111

Post by javert »

throwit1979 wrote: post #98
jacquesm wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a tactical mistake because stuff like this will tip the scales into the direction of the general public caring about it without giving much of anything in return. It's mostly downside unless Greenwald & co did something dumb, and so far they don't strike me as dumb.

Really? If you talk with any of your non-tech friends about this topic, does a single one of them care? My money is on no. And in the unlikely case the answer is nonzero, the proffered solution is always to vote for "the other guy". It's naiveté at the highest level to think that any meaningful proportion of the electorate cares, and that a single thing will change. If anything, the State now has tacit permission to…

So what do you propose as a solution? (And you're not obligated to have one. I agree with what you're saying here, and I don't know of any solution.)

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#112

Post by oscargrouch »

muzz wrote: post #95
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…

> This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime Perhaps it is, but the American people don't seem to want that. Kerry voiced a similar opinion in 2004 and Bush took great advantage by pointing that out. Popular opinion appeared to be on Bush's side i.e. that terrorism is not a law enforcement matter: http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/10/bush.kerry.terror/

to see how bad thing is, because its was the UK government abusing its use of force to a brazillian citizen.. so.. the point remains.. things are very much out of control just because a bunch of red necks dont understand what civil rights is, and became puppets of a terrible president..

if you guys did want to burn your constitutional rights, what the rest of the world got to do with it?! we value civil liberties, civil rights and freedom..

i know half north-america also do.. but you must put these guys under control, at least until their IQ raise a little bit, so they cannot push the buttons if your country machinery..

but anyway, now it was also the UK.. we could see this one comming from the US, but UK? as sex pistols would say: nevermind the bollocks

All of our contries has its own bad apples, but its a pretty bad thing when they are running our governments.. shame on you UK!

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#113

Post by ams6110 »

mythz wrote: post #78
straight_talk_2 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And this time around, let's hope we are a bit more curious about the "change" we are voting for.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#114

Post by Amadou »

andreyf wrote: post #85
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…

The intent was quite likely to intimidate other journalists, whistle blowers, or just people in a position to help them. It could also have been to make more public that Greenwald has a younger gay Brazilian partner, something we gloss over in this crowd, but for which he'll be judged harashly for in other social circles. I don't think it was a coincidence that Greenwald was contacted when Miranda was detained. Whoev…

I don't think it was a coincidence that Greenwald was contacted as soon as Miranda was detained.

He was not, it was 3 hours later.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#115

Post by kabdib »

Amadou wrote: post #109
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…

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 i…

Clerical for an hour, /maybe/. Not clerical for nine hours, that's planning.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#116

Post by rolux »

grey-area wrote: post #100
rolux wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation Intimidation is the purpose of anti-terrorism legislation. This is not an abuse of some exceptional powers -- it's their most common use .

I disagree. These are exceptional powers (they deliberately negate several important rights like the right to know the charges against you and have a lawyer present), and if they are being misused, they should be taken away. They are justified to the population on the basis of extreme measures for extreme opponents - if that is shown to be a smokescreen and the security services to be inveterate liars, I think the po…

I'd rather see these powers as an institutionalized state of emergency. They're permanent -- there's no concept of "taking them away".

And I'm not so sure about the role of the population either. It's not exactly them who can either accept or not accept the call for such laws.

If you had someone, on a national ticket, who would openly call for their abolishment, matters would be different, of course.

But then -- how do you get onto a national ticket? A hysterical, broken democracy is a hard thing to fix from inside.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#117

Post by octagonal »

davidw wrote: post #71
jlgreco wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

The mere fact that it's becoming possible to make comparisons between a Western government and a criminal organisation, even if it's just to get a message across, is worse enough on its own.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#119

Post by k-mcgrady »

anigbrowl wrote: post #104
k-mcgrady wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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/Ant…

>> "anyone arrested in relation to Northern Irish terrorism could be held for 48 hours without charge"

This I understand due to the threat level here. Bombs are discovered on a regular basis (I've linked to just one example[1] but if you take a look through the news in the last 2 months you'll find more) and the threat of terrorism is real.

[1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23735805

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#120

Post by oscargrouch »

rolux wrote: post #75
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…

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 arrest…

>the UK authorities primarily demonstrate, to themselves, >that they still hold certain powers

yes. the power to be subservient to the US twisted domestic politics.. (a US colony perhaps??)

Post reply on HN