Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation • Hacker News Board

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#311

Post by semanticist » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 1:53 AM UTC

fragsworth wrote: post #270

rsynnott wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. Well, it's not like the Guardian is really terribly popular amongst bigots, anyway... If he wrote for the Daily Mail I could see your point.

The irrational (but very real) reasoning goes like this: Glenn reported on the NSA leaks. Glenn is gay. Everything gays do is wrong, therefore reporting on the NSA leaks is wrong. Also, supporting gays is bad, because someone might think you're gay. Therefore supporting NSA leakers is bad. Where Glenn works is irrelevant. The NSA probably wants to discredit everyone involved, and garner as much support for themselves…

The leader of the Scottish Conservative Party is a lesbian, the Conservative government just pushed through same-sex marriage legislation. I don't think the idea 'gays are wrong' gets you very far in the UK any more.

The only prominent politician I can think of who pushes that line is Nick Griffin, and he's literally a nazi.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#312

Post by olefoo » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 1:54 AM UTC

api wrote: post #238

HN is a smart bunch, so I'm going to ask: Why do people think the security state is being rammed through with such a sense of urgency right now? Are they expecting something? A war? An economic crisis? Ecological meltdown? Invasion from outer space? I ask because I get the impression that there is a top-down (from the executive branch) full-court-press on this, and that the gloves are coming off. That leads me to won…

I think Charles Stross said it best[1], what we have now is effectively the ancien regime pre-revolutionary state; that MUST retain absolute control, lest the natural order be shattered irretrievably.

In effect, the guardians of the status quo are in full panic mode and are not necessarily reacting rationally.

This is why this incident should be investigated by ( on the UK side ) a parliamentary commission, and ( on the US side ) by an independent congressional commission.

1. http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad-dr...

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#313

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:09 AM UTC

k-mcgrady wrote: post #119

anigbrowl wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You don't have to explain that to me. I'm from Ireland, I used to live in London, and I've seen bombs go off myself, so I'm quite aware of the risks to the public. What I'm saying is that it's disingenuous of you to express surprise about the existence of such laws.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#314

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:11 AM UTC

switch007 wrote: post #161

anigbrowl wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't new. The UK has long had wide-ranging anti-terrorism powers because the IRA were running bombing campaigns in (mostly) London from the late 60s to the late 90s. And every country has different rules for ports/airports, for the same reason they have customs posts there.

The 2000 act listed the IRA as a proscribed group but it wasn't the focus of the legislation. There were major changes to "terrorism" legislation between 2000-2010. The 2001 and later acts/modifications were more a result of 9/11, 7/7 and the "war on terror" (and the UK being Bush's little bitch).

And my point is that this is just an expansion of a pre-existing framework, in response to an attack of unprecedented devastation.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#315

Post by rdl » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:12 AM UTC

gsnedders wrote: post #304

rdl wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow, under title 7 in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to answer questions for any reason during that 9 hour period. Looks like a total travel boycott of the UK is prudent. In addition to compelled disclosure of keys, it is worse than the US for this reason too.

Try asserting any right to silence at the US border — you won't get far. If you are not a US national, I'd expect you to be refused entry (and as one is required to complete an ETSA prior to arrival, one is required to sign away any right to appeal of the decision of the border control staff).

Oh, I'm totally fine with people who are non-cooperative and non-citizens being denied entry. I'm a US Citizen, so I have an absolute right to re-enter the US without answering any questions (they do have a right to make sure I'm who I say I am, and that I'm not carrying any prohibited things in contravention of customs regulations, but that's it).

I'm not sure how it works for transit. Also, if I were not a US citizen (and, even as a US citizen), I'd avoid the US as a transit country if at all possible -- lack of sterile transit makes it a pain due to waiting and scheduling even if you're a citizen, and if you're not visa waiver, it's horrible.

The UK does sterile transit, so most travelers shouldn't even have to touch security/immigration/customs if they're in transit only, which is what confuses me about this story.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#316

Post by dsuth » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:13 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #217

dsuth wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another possible pre-meditated outcome: 4) Highlight the fact that Greenwald is in an openly gay relationship in an attempt to discredit him / colour what he's saying in a personal light. Sadly, a large part of the conservative base will cling to this I think.

The conservative base in the UK? If not then how do you see the link, he was held in the UK, not the US?

Globally, as this is a global story with global consequences (the entire NSA scandal, not just this part of it).

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#317

Post by dsuth » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:24 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #300

rgrieselhuber wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He is a dick but he unfortunately has some ammo in the sense that the Guardian appears to have financed the trip. That still doesn't make what happened acceptable but it will assuage those who lean towards sympathizing with the NSA. The fact that Greenwald wasn't more forthcoming about this makes it even more difficult.

I don't see how that makes any difference, in fact if it makes a difference it makes it worse. Detaining partner of journalist -> bad. Detaining newspaper employee, possibly journalist -> very bad. Once journalists will feel that they are in danger of no longer being free to do their reporting this story will get a lot more attention than it does at the moment.

Agree with this. There's a large measure of difference between detaining a private citizen (bad), and detaining somebody under the employ of a journalist organisation (far, far worse).

One is harrassment, the other is political intimidation in an attempt to censor.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#318

Post by anigbrowl » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:29 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #232

anigbrowl wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Or maybe he's too pissed-off right now to weigh every word he writes on a golden scale. I know I would be.

Too bad. I think he's made that particular bed so now he has to lie in it.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#319

Post by dsuth » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:41 AM UTC

acqq wrote: post #142

saraid216 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That is, Mr. David Miranda had no Miranda rights there. I wasn't aware that Brazilian citizens detained in the UK had rights granted by the US.

Of course they never had. The goal was to point that it's not like in the movies. He can't demand the lawyer, he can't even stay silent. A lot of things to slip the tongue during the nine hours of interrogation. Being detained under terrorist laws, it must have occurred to him that they can even throw him in Guantanamo and claim legality. Intimidation, you bet!

How do you propose they forced him to talk? They're interrogators, not torturers. It would be perfectly valid to sit there and refuse to answer questions for 9 hours, if not particularly pleasant.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#320

Post by fragsworth » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 2:43 AM UTC

kafkaesque wrote: post #136

As Greenwald's response[0] suggests, it seems the only obvious way to cause any type of change (from small to moderate), seems to speak in terms of 'mafia', 'fascism', and 'police state'. Allow me to take John Stuart Mill out of context momentarily, because he was speaking with regard to Irish-English relationship (territory disputes between the two countries). But it summarises Mill's thought on why radical and extr…

Being modest in an argument never convinces anyone of anything. However, if you appear to be seriously pissed and offended, then people tend to think for a moment about it.

Why are they so angry? There must be a good reason.