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

331–340 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#331

Post by acqq »

dsuth wrote: post #319
acqq wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

"If you don't answer our questions, you will be charged and kept here." It's legal in UK for them to actually open the case then.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#332

Post by MaysonL »

LekkoscPiwa wrote: post #328
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…

> 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. I wouldn't never, ever doubt the amount of sheer stupidity and arrogance of a Government.

Amply documented here (as far as British "Intelligence" goes):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/posts/BUGGER

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#333

Post by MaysonL »

appleflaxen wrote: post #5

> The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows What a flagrant abuse of power. It looks like their power should be reigned in. The acts are fascism. The public would pay more attention if we refer to them as such. * edits: wording. I have hard time being dispassionate about this.

I think John Dean's comment about the Bush administration fits this situation: ((perhaps mis-)quaoted from memory)

"They're not on the road to fascism, but they're not very far from that road."

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#334

Post by gbhn »

monsterix wrote: post #127
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…

> Really? If you talk with any of your non-tech friends about this topic, does a single one of them care? I've had quite the opposite experience so far. Most of the non-tech people I met recently on buses, shops etc. seemed to understand the problem very clearly and they cared. People cared about the issues at hand and quite intensely at that. True that the majority seems silent, but deep inside almost everyone expre…

Who's Kanye? But seriously, there's a lot of people who care. I think we have to shake the habit of concluding that what the celebrity insider press reports on is what people at large care about. Most people don't read the papers that aren't covering the story. So what?

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#335

Post by typon »

GhotiFish wrote: post #121
omonra wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't be shy - call it what it is - genocide.

People did not catch that joke. I think the issue was that you didn't go far enough. The internet has people who would say something like that and mean it. It wasn't absurd enough to be dismissed.

Actually we did, it wasn't that clever or funny.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#336

Post by chii »

jacquesm wrote: post #179
rdtsc wrote: post #169

Earlier 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…

Sharp. I do think this is driven by fear and incompetence rather than malice but you could easily be right. I'd love to be a fly on the wall in the various offices dealing with the fall-out from this, especially the interface boundary between the foreign affairs and the anti-terror branches.

It'd be interesting if the "interrogation" of suspected "terrorists" have to be video-taped, and then after the fact, released publicly for scrutiny.

I think audit trails and accountability (and the threat of punishment for those who abuse their power) will curtail such civil liberties abuses.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#337

Post by prawn »

Amadou wrote: post #309
joezydeco wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, he was contacted. It's amazing that the owner of Lavabit can't even talk about what he can't talk about, yet Greenwald gets a mysterious phone call letting him know Miranda is in the process of being questioned?

First off, those two things aren't even in the same jurisdiction. But, you know that can go both ways. Maybe the caller was sympathetic to Miranda's situation but his hands were tied by the bureaucracy and all of his fellows who were less-than-sympathetic? By alerting Greenwald he let someone else without anything to lose take action. Maybe the reason he wouldn't give out his name is because he didn't want to face in…

I think it's more concerning that they're not in the same jurisdiction (technically, at least).

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#338

Post by homeomorphic »

rmc wrote: post #65
northwest wrote: post #21

The UK should be kicked out of the EU. Until they learn how to behave.

The UK was part of the EU during (most of the) 1970s and 80s, when there was numerous anti-terrorism laws and abuses in Northern Ireland.

The EU came to be in 1993 :)

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#339

Post by jacquesm »

rdl wrote: post #301
jacquesm wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny I thought you of all people would be aware of this :) Yes, the UK is worse. I never really got why Assange went there willingly in the first place.

I dislike the uk for purely practical reasons (expensive and wages aren't higher to compensate outside finance, not actually different enough from the US to be interesting to me). I knew about RIP but not about the border detention issue. My international flights tend to be nonstop or via very particular airports due to weapons laws (when I was flying to Iraq often), or to Asia, not Europe. I'd also probably not go v…

You're best off to go through either Schiphol, Paris or Frankfurt (in that order). Paris has really good connections to Latin America as well (direct flights), Schiphol not as many but quite a few.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#340

Post by rdl »

jacquesm wrote: post #339
rdl wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dislike the uk for purely practical reasons (expensive and wages aren't higher to compensate outside finance, not actually different enough from the US to be interesting to me). I knew about RIP but not about the border detention issue. My international flights tend to be nonstop or via very particular airports due to weapons laws (when I was flying to Iraq often), or to Asia, not Europe. I'd also probably not go v…

You're best off to go through either Schiphol, Paris or Frankfurt (in that order). Paris has really good connections to Latin America as well (direct flights), Schiphol not as many but quite a few.

As a Star Alliance person, it's almost always Frankfurt. LH Senator made it a whole lot better, too.

AF had a cool "Petroleum Club" program, too, which let anyone marginally affiliated with the oil industry get free lounge access and other benefits.

I'd still almost always prefer making my connection within the US and flying nonstop from the US to my final European destination. I generally only fly ex-SFO, JFK, IAD so there's generally a non-stop flight anyway.

Post reply on HN