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

181–190 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#181

Post by alextingle »

superuser2 wrote: post #107
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.

Fuck that. Let them charge me and let's see what the judge says.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#182

Post by jacquesm »

kabdib wrote: post #115
Amadou wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Alternative explanation (without endorsing either): it took 9 hours because nobody high enough could be found that would sign off on keeping him longer.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#183

Post by mcintyre1994 »

LoganCale wrote: post #36
akg_67 wrote: post #33

I guess Greenwald, his family and friends are now on terrorist watch list. I wonder how soon Guardian will be dubbed Terrorist Organization. More and more, it appears western governments are following the policy of if you criticize us, you are terrorist.

And as those governments do that, they lose all remaining legitimacy.

The great irony being that as they lose their legitimacy they're gaining power by labeling more people/activities as terrorists/terrorism.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#184

Post by jacquesm »

rolux wrote: post #102
jacquesm wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Brazil has a tit-for-tat policy when it comes to how their citizens are treated. Backpressure could come from all kinds of interesting directions.

If this wasn't officially sanctioned from above there will be fall-out.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#185

Post by jacquesm »

throwit1979 wrote: post #166
javert wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The first, obviously, is swift and violent revolution. Historically speaking, totalitarian power has only ever succumbed to greater power. Obviously this is not an option I would advocate or consider. Nor is it an option that's even possible. Drunk NRA members with Mini-14s versus the US Naval Carrier Fleet, USMC, and USAF, all of which are provided with dossiers on high value targets sympathetic to the cause provide…

Maybe you should stop the heavy drinking. Swift and violent revolution? That'll work just dandy, let me go get my AK-47 out of the storage grease.

FFS don't talk nonsense and if you must don't do it here.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#186

Post by doctoboggan »

rdtsc wrote: post #169
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…

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…

> As some mentioned in the comments, even the Mafia has basic engagement rules to leave family members alone.

That was actually mentioned in the article.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#187

Post by jacquesm »

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!

Guantanamo is not a UK facility.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#188

Post by pbreit »

throwit1979 wrote: post #82
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 worst tactical mistake made by any government to date Why would this be a tactical mistake? The general public DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK. The government(s) know(s) this quite well. If you think for a second that detention of associates of political enemies matters to an electorate far more interested in the minutiae of Kanye West's baby, you're living in a fairy land of your own making.

My sense from obama's recent remarks is that there is definitely some change under consideration as a result of the snowden revelations and greenwald's important involvement. So I disagree with you pretty strenuously. And I do think more people care about this than you think, both in the tech and non-tech worlds.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#189

Post by mbesto »

alextingle wrote: post #173
throwit1979 wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

My non-tech friends care quite a lot about this story too.

I've seen a few comments that say the same thing. Care to elaborate how far their "care" really goes? Are they doing something about it, or is just like any other news in America where it's dinner-table conversation, but nothing else.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#190

Post by md224 »

throwit1979 wrote: post #166
javert wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The first, obviously, is swift and violent revolution. Historically speaking, totalitarian power has only ever succumbed to greater power. Obviously this is not an option I would advocate or consider. Nor is it an option that's even possible. Drunk NRA members with Mini-14s versus the US Naval Carrier Fleet, USMC, and USAF, all of which are provided with dossiers on high value targets sympathetic to the cause provide…

You could also look at what Upworthy is doing: a "mission-driven" company engineering viral content for the purpose of promoting social awareness and other things they find to be generally healthy for society.

People overestimate the impact of the Internet, but they also underestimate it; I have a suspicion that the dissolution of traditional mass media will make it easier for interest groups to influence the public sphere via social networks, using propagation techniques similar to those that Upworthy is currently harnessing. That's what I find fascinating about Upworthy: using social media marketing strategies to sell ideas instead of products.

Post reply on HN