Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

I face investigation for terrorism

craigmurray.org.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

511–520 of 530 posts

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#511

Post by KenArrari »

brewtide wrote: post #454
KenArrari wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran into a similar problem entering the US on a ferry from the Bahamas. I think I may have been misled but apparently if you're on the border you aren't allowed to refuse to talk/refuse searches/etc. So they forced me to search my phone and spent about 6 hours interrogating me about my political opinions, family history, etc.

I think it's like 200 miles from any boarder, including the coastline. Ie. It can be very broadly abused.

Yeah which is crazy because that basically means every major city in the country.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#512

Post by acdha »

jjgreen wrote: post #508
acdha wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a misattribution. Not bringing your phone means you are choosing not to do something perfectly legal due to abuse of power — and doing so is likely to encourage further abuse because the culprits know they are less likely to be recorded.

I'd disagree, you taking your phone through customs is indeed legal, and the border goon's seizure of your phone (by force if they prefer) and demand for your password on penalty of imprisonment is also legal. So this is not a legal issue, everyone is acting within the law. One could argue that it is a political issue, that the law should be changed (and I'd agree), but that's a different question.

That’s the point: there are multiple laws involved, court cases trying to establish where things like rights to privacy end, etc. – none of those are technical issues.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#513

Post by IYasha »

aembleton wrote: post #234
IYasha wrote: post #182

While I'm overall feeling very sorry for the author, I can't help but note the color of the article text which I'm really struggling to see. My vision is not the best, and my display is just terrible, but I don't think it's so bad for just me. So if, after this terrible problem is hopefully resolved, I would humbly suggest fixing this issue.

Just click on reader mode in Firefox. Makes it much easier.

Unfortunately, I don't have such option.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#514

Post by Zisko »

diggan wrote: post #3

Some context: > Craig John Murray is a Scottish author, human rights campaigner, journalist, and former diplomat [...] he became a political activist, campaigning for human rights and for transparency in global politics as well as for the independence of Scotland [...] Murray was one of few people granted access to Julian Assange's extradition hearing which started in the Old Bailey on 7 September 2020. He published…

He explicitly and unambiguously expressed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah here: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#515

Post by wsgeorge »

lmm wrote: post #329
bawolff wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes even less sense. To annex something means to add it to an existing state. Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. The UK controlled the area at the time, but they basically gave up and left. I don't understand how you could say they were annexing it at this point in time either. Israel is closer to being a succesor state to mandatory palestine than anything else. Generally internationa…

> Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. That seems like a purely semantic argument. If a bunch of people from a particular political movement show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation, whether that nation is completely new or existing doesn't change the morality of that anywhere. E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognis…

> show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation

This is the root of your confusion. A bunch of people didn't just "show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land". This bunch of people were steadily migrating and acquiring land legally. The only real "seizure" happened within the context of war caused by their growing, legal presence on the land.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#516

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

coolThingsFirst wrote: post #456
boppo1 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's kinda like reddit in that there's multiple boards with a broad array of topics. A few of the boards regularly have threads with pretty extreme racism/hate. Recently the president of a Detroit synagogue was stabbed to death outside her home and there were multiple threads openly celebrating the murder. But elsewhere on the site people are sharing clips of cute cows doing cute cow things. As a more specific exampl…

Why would that implicate you on terrorism charges? You aren't responsible for what people post online. Anyone can post anything on a forum and you may be looking at it because of other interesting stuff doesn't mean you have bad intentions. I think it's mainly paranoia, I still think the odds of falsely being charged with terrorism are incredibly low.

> Why would that implicate you on terrorism charges?

They might be referring to a couple decades ago when 4chan users were referred to as "domestic terrorists" in a hyperbolic fox news report

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#517

Post by lmm »

ahoka wrote: post #421
lmm wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They think the Tweet is indication that he supports Hamas enough to aid or promote them secretly. “If this guy is this outspoken publicly for his support of Hamas, what must he be doing to support them behind closed doors? Does he donate to them? Organize for them?” If they think that then why just him and not the thousands of other people tweeting similar things? The thought process is evidently "oh, it's that blo…

Probably if Mary-Sue from Idaho, a shop clerk tweets this it’s not exactly the same if a former diplomat with international connections and public influence does it?

You're grossly overselling his influence. He doesn't have the ear of the powerful or the mob. Even if he were to explicitly call his followers to take up arms - which is a long way past the quoted statement - I very much doubt any of them would.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#518

Post by BlueTemplar »

dash2 wrote: post #150
logicchains wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance Imagine if Russia manages to annex most of Ukraine, and converts the rest of Ukraine into an open-air prison. If twenty years later the people in that part of Ukraine manage to gather weapons and launch a counter-attack on Russia, wouldn't that count as resistance?

I cannot believe I have to say this. No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents is not a "counter-attack", nor is it "resistance". This statement is actively evil.

One does not preclude the other. This is not a Hollywood movie, the Resistance fighting against the Empire are more likely to commit atrocities, not less (because they are in a position of weakness).

I am reminded of the colonization of the USA : some of the Native American tribes were infamous for their atrocities (if I am not mistaken, ramped up against the colonists compared to what they usually did in war ?).

Of course in the long term the Resistance committing atrocities only hurts their own cause : it gives a justification for the Empire to commit genocide.

We will see whether Israel will take the opportunity, or will only leave genocide as a publicly made promise - note also that under the current situation, genocide is going to happen by sheer neglect if a significant fraction of the needed humanitarian aid is not let in.

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#519

Post by BlueTemplar »

wsgeorge wrote: post #515
lmm wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Israel by definition can't annex something before it exists. That seems like a purely semantic argument. If a bunch of people from a particular political movement show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation, whether that nation is completely new or existing doesn't change the morality of that anywhere. E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognis…

> show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land and declare it's part of their nation This is the root of your confusion. A bunch of people didn't just "show up somewhere and seize a bunch of land". This bunch of people were steadily migrating and acquiring land legally. The only real "seizure" happened within the context of war caused by their growing, legal presence on the land.

This is the crux of the issue, isn't it ?

If I am not mistaken, the first colonies in the USA also "legally" acquired land ? (In the sense that the natives agreed to their presence.)

Re: I face investigation for terrorism

#520

Post by BlueTemplar »

bawolff wrote: post #361
lmm wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence AIUI it pretty much was; yes the zionist movement existed to a certain extent before WW2, but the overwhelming majority of jewish people living on the territory of Palestine in 1948 had moved there at most a few years before (with a huge increase in those who felt the desire or need to move there as persecution escalated in Europe in the 1930s a…

It seems like firm numbers are pretty hard to find, but wikipedia suggests there was significant jewish population concentrated in Jerusalem, even in the early 1500s (about 20% of the city) with conflicting reports of them becoming a plurality in the mid 1800s. (Arguably that's cherrypicking a single city) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusal... There's certainly reasons one could doubt the nu…

Weren't the Puritans persecuted in the UK ?

Australia was literally a penal colony.

(Of course this probably doesn't apply to all colonies, I wonder if those that started as trade depots fare differently ?)

Post reply on HN