Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Taking into account that the UK law enforcement and Brazil have a bit of a history when it comes to labeling people terrorist wrongly makes it even worse. In case anybody is wondering, the UK murdered a Brazilian man on the train with several bullets to the head after they explicitly identified him as a suspect and authorized his takedown. He had no ties to terrorism at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Je…
It was a mistake in all the confusion right after 7/7 bombing of London tubes. Tragic, but completely understandable.
Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
431–440 of 463 posts
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#432Earlier 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…
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/18/world/europe/greenwald-par...
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/greenwald-par...
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#433Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DA-Notice
Well it hasn't stopped the Guardian or even the Daily Mail, it seems ;-) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2396745/Edward-Snowd... .. I could never have thought I could hold up the Mail as a good source :-)
It's a struggle for me to even vaguely consider the Mail as a good source but they do seem to needle the government over certain things the others won't touch. I'd imagine because they feel they have such a swing over a large proportion of the main voter base for the UK they feel like they can get away with things that a lesser newspaper would be dragged over the coals for.
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#434Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nah, it is actually a pretty good idea. It's high time for the EU to actually take a stance on civil liberties, human rights and the abolishment of these ‘anti-terrorism acts’. This will be a lot harder if there are people at the table working on their application as the 51st state. Furthermore, by cutting ties with the UK, both its financial and economical situation will be worsened, making for a loss of importance…
There is an a European body dedicated to civil liberties and human rights, and it isn't the EU. It's the Council of Europe, which is the body which coordinated the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and runs the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The only human rights cases that come before the EU courts (the CJEU) are only those within its jurisdiction. Which means: either reviewing acts of EU instituti…
What I did mean to say was that the EU as a whole should (politically) take a strong stance on such issues, implement appropriate, EU-wide legislation to protect the privacy of European citizens from their own and third party governments as well as private companies and enforce corresponding standards in international trade – i.e., I was referring to a political process that I would like to take place (within the EU), not a judicial lawsuit in front of the appropriate court of law.
Regarding your last paragraph: The Treaty of Lisbon does contain an exit clause[0], which either requires the agreement on a withdrawal treaty or a period of two years from the notification of the intention to secede. This means that, within the current legal framework, it is possible
a) for the UK to declare its intention to leave and just do so in roughly 2015.
b) for the UK to declare its intention to leave, agree on an appropriate treaty and then leave as soon as possible.
c) for the other member states to leave (in 2015) and – in parts – form an appropriate core union which is made clear to be more than a free trade zone.
Naturally, the last option is rather unlikely to occur any time soon, but it would be legally possible and certainly not damage the reputation of the Council of Europe (at least not more than Russia’s prolonged membership therein).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#435Earlier 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…
2 tests perhaps and a warning. I suspect they are a step ahead, and actually did think this through. Whether it will backfire or not is up to the citizens to decide. But I suspect it won't backfire enough to cause a dent. 1) A test to see how the journalist will react and to flush out more information. I.e. force him to disclose more information so they know what he has. 2) Another test is to test public opinion. So…
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#436Earlier quoted context omitted.
The actions cited: investigating the behavior of government, and questioning public servants about that behavior. Which is basically the role of the fourth branch; read any founding father. But you describe this, with a vindictive imagination zealous enough to do any federal prosecutor proud, as "blackmail". Journalists, doing their jobs. What. The. Fuck.
Journalists doing their jobs is quite a lot different to what the poster posted: > They can make an oxygen-sucking scandal out of nothing. This could devour the rest of Obama's second term if it gets out of hand This is not 'journalism'. This is blackmail.
I know you're trolling me here, but fuck it there probably are some halfwits out there nodding along with these power-worshiping redefinitions of old, well-understood law. From 18 U.S.C. § 873, blackmail: "Whoever, under a threat of informing, or as a consideration for not informing, against any violation of any law of the United States, demands or receives any money or other valuable thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned..." There's no money here. What is the "other valuable thing"? The safety of journalists' innocent loved ones? That's monstrous, and that isn't a proper interpretation of law.
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
2 tests perhaps and a warning. I suspect they are a step ahead, and actually did think this through. Whether it will backfire or not is up to the citizens to decide. But I suspect it won't backfire enough to cause a dent. 1) A test to see how the journalist will react and to flush out more information. I.e. force him to disclose more information so they know what he has. 2) Another test is to test public opinion. So…
> 1) A test to see how the journalist will react and to > flush out more information. I.e. force him to disclose > more information so they know what he has. I think they already know through a post event review of MicroSoft's built in auditing logs. My understanding is that Snowden was a low level Windows admin that copied stuff that was either 1) in transit through a Microsoft Sharepoint server 2) anything he could…
John Schindler is only a source of "excellent information" on this case in the sense that Ann Coulter provides "excellent political commentary". What a total joke.
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#438Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what AI is saying: >Schedule 7 is the law that allows the police to detain anyone at the UK borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present. No lawyer is provided automatically. >It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer ques…
Hmm, it seems that one wouldn't be in violation of that if every answer was "I want a lawyer before I am willing to answer that".
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#439Earlier 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…
2 tests perhaps and a warning. I suspect they are a step ahead, and actually did think this through. Whether it will backfire or not is up to the citizens to decide. But I suspect it won't backfire enough to cause a dent. 1) A test to see how the journalist will react and to flush out more information. I.e. force him to disclose more information so they know what he has. 2) Another test is to test public opinion. So…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER
The people who really benefitted from this action are Greenwald, The Guardian and those of us who want our governments to stop abusing their power. The UK government just look like assholes again. This will spawn further news stories in places like The Guardian as the legal fallout from this continues thereby keeping the surveillance state in the news cycle longer.
Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
Journalists doing their jobs is quite a lot different to what the poster posted: > They can make an oxygen-sucking scandal out of nothing. This could devour the rest of Obama's second term if it gets out of hand This is not 'journalism'. This is blackmail.
If it were up to those in power to define what is and is not "an oxygen-sucking scandal out of nothing", nothing would get investigated by journalists, ever. That's why, at least until recently, it has been journalists who have decided the proper focus of their work. The First Amendment is not vague on this point: Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press... I know you're trolling…
No, the 'other valuable thing' in this case is immunity from search or seizure.