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

391–400 of 463 posts

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#391

Post by claudius »

waxjar wrote: post #389
claudius wrote: post #171

Earlier 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 are people living on that island that really don't deserve what you propose to do to them.

Then they should have voted for a different government.

Sorry, but “there are people in a country with a democratic government that don’t deserve what their government brought upon them” is not a particularly good reason – and even then, I don’t think it’d hurt to allow immigration into Europe for a while, so there’s even a perspective for those that “really don’t deserve” the results of their (in)action.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#392

Post by hahainternet »

TWAndrews wrote: post #327
throwit1979 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's a mistake because targeting a journalist's family member is quite likely to piss the average journalist the fuck off. The Washington Press corps can make Obama's life fucking miserable if they so choose, and absolutely drown his agenda in press about Snowden, Greenwald, how and when the White House communicated with the UK about this, and a million other things. They can make an oxygen-sucking scandal out of not…

You realise that such speculation is more immoral than the acts carried out so far right? You're ostensibly describing trying to blackmail the most powerful man in the world.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#393

Post by Shivetya »

doctoboggan wrote: post #186
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…

> 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.

like my doctor used to like job about the differences between terrorists and the government, at least you can negotiate with the terrorists.

hopefully people are finally coming to that realization that the common quip about the government treating itself as above the law is actually true

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#394

Post by namdnay »

semanticist wrote: post #311
fragsworth wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Farage has started pushing that line a bit, but it seems to be more a way of pulling in some more hardline conservatives than a strong personal conviction

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#395

Post by hahainternet »

nitrogen wrote: post #93
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…

...casting nasty looks my way.... That's one of the worst parts of abuses of power; the people not being abused very quickly start to blame the victims of abuse. "You must be a bad person if they're talking to you," onlookers might be thinking to themselves.

In this thread a man being detained for 9 hours has been compared as worse than mafia members murdering people, now apparently the look on the faces of hte officers is a serious abuse too.

This whole thread has destroyed any credibility HN had.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#396

Post by harshreality »

davidw wrote: post #348
MichaelSalib wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With respect, you might want to familiarize yourself with some significant papers from the political science literature, starting with http://static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf‎

Access denied. Do you have another link?

http://static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#397

Post by w_t_payne »

olefoo wrote: post #312
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…

I agree .. but I also think that technological change is exacerbating old stresses in the system.

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#398

Post by Kabacaru »

jacquesm wrote: post #237
rmk2 wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Neither the BBC, Independent, The Sun nor Daily Mail report on it; q.e.d., the "general public" doesn't care. Edit: The Sun does, however, have boobs on its homepage, the Daily Mail talks about celebrities and the BBC's international site talks about Syria, Gibraltar and Usain Bolt, with its England page concerned with assisted suicide, a rider who died after a horse accident, something about climate activists and th…

This could be due to them receiving D-Notices.

Or a super-injunction

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#399

Post by SEMW »

roryokane wrote: post #261

I don’t understand why this article so carefully avoids the word “spouse”. I had no idea what kind of partner David Miranda was – business, romantic, or marriage – for most of the article. The story only hinted at the meaning in the third-to-last paragraph, about “detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists”. Was this just bad editing, or does nobody talk about “business partners” any more?

It's just a style issue. From 2004 until very recently gay couples in England could only get a 'civil partnership', not a marriage; possibly because of that 'X is Y's partner' in the UK is these days understood as meaning a romantic attachment. (The business meaning still exists, but is phrased as e.g. "X and Y are both partners at Foobar LLP" rather than "X is Y's partner").

Re: Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

#400

Post by bwindels »

m1 wrote: post #271
saraid216 wrote: post #141

Does anyone have the original article link? There are several indications in the comments that it was changed by an HN editor.

The original article link was http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald... The title was edited by the mods at least twice.

Original link was AFAIK http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...
Post reply on HN