401–410 of 463 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 :)
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
As bad as things are in America vis-a-vis the surveillance state, I've always thought that England is actually worse. I guess it explains why they have such a rich history of dystopian thought. When I saw the "Secure beneath the watchful eyes" poster [1] I couldn't believe it wasn't satire. [1] http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg
As a Brit, I agree. But, the scope is different. The US threatens literally every country on earth..... the UK? Ah, bless. Its almost funny, isn't it? All we can do is harass our own, in order to suck up to Uncle Sam. TBH, I find UK behavior worse. Its not on principle, its sucking up. My country turns my stomach at times, and this is one of them.
Going by history, the UK is the most threatening entity ever...
Had they found anything during the 9 hours, I'm afraid he wouldn't be flying to Brazil - he would have been detained indefinitely as a "terror" suspect in order to intimidate Greenwald even more.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 would be very surprised if what would clearly become a high-profile detainment wasn't choreographed ahead of time to the minute, the possible routes of questioning prepared, and the timing and contents of the phone call thought through and structures to elicit particular response. These are moves in a PR campaign of the utmost importance, not some random detention decided by a low-level bureaucrat.
Greenwald sends his husband all the way to Berlin and back to meet with Poitras? And he's allegedly (from some headlines this weekend) carrying all the Snowden documents? Wouldn't Greenwald already have this? Why would he send his husband and not some unknown person that was probably under the radar?
And obviously the US/UK is trying to let the Snowden/Assange group know that their every step is being watched. I'm also guessing Poitras' safe house in Berlin is now not as safe anymore.
This is like watching a spy novel unfold in real life. I can't wait for the book that eventually explains everything that is currently happening.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is probably the worst idea I've read on HN this week. It's not just legally and politically impossible, it wouldn't solve the problem, it would have dire economic consequences, it would be grossly disproportionate and unfair and these kind of petty attempts at disciplining sovereign nations would only serve to politically destabilise Europe.
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…
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 institutions (e.g. as in Kadi, which was reviewing regulations by the EC implementing a UN Security Council directive), or reviewing EU laws, or reviewing acts of member states implementing EU laws.
So: while the EU does have a charter of fundamental rights (the CFREU) - and is itself soon going to be a signatory to the ECHR - you can only sue the government in the CJEU for violating it when they're implementing EU law. (Especially for the UK and Poland, who have a pointless clause which restates this just for them because they're special snowflakes).
The Terrorism Act 2000 is not an EU law.
So: this is outside the scope of the EU's jurisdiction. The appropriate international court to take this to is the ECtHR.
As for kicking the UK out of the Council of Europe, that's something that can and should happen if, and only if, someone brings this to the the ECtHR, they rule against the UK, and the UK refuses to bring UK law into compliance. Trying to short-circuit that and kick the UK out without that legal process would do nothing except damage the reputation of the Council of Europe for rule of law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Stop licking the boots of power for a second and think about what you've said: literally, that imagining questions one might ask of misbehaving public servants is worse than the original misbehavior of those public servants. What color is the sky in your world?
The fact that you instantly jump to 'licking the boots of power' indicates to me that you don't tolerate any dissent from your views.
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?