I face investigation for terrorism(craigmurray.org.uk)
craigmurray.org.uk
I face investigation for terrorism
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2023/10/incredibly-i-face-investigation-for-terrorism-defence-funds-appeal/
512 comments
Facing charges which are unnamed, mysterious interrogations. This is very Kafakesque and disturbing.
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 detailed reports of each day's proceedings on his website.
Seems absolutely bananas that law enforcement can cite anti-terrorism laws in order to confiscate and detain an individual with absolutely zero ties to anything violent. What terrorism are they stopping here?
> 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 detailed reports of each day's proceedings on his website.
Seems absolutely bananas that law enforcement can cite anti-terrorism laws in order to confiscate and detain an individual with absolutely zero ties to anything violent. What terrorism are they stopping here?
> I volunteered that I thought I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of twitter. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide.
The only clue I see is the reference to a tweet. Anyone know which tweet this could refer to? Sounds like advocating violence, with a poorly stated context of self-defense.
The only clue I see is the reference to a tweet. Anyone know which tweet this could refer to? Sounds like advocating violence, with a poorly stated context of self-defense.
Seems he has tweeted a lot about Israel/Palestine as of late, hard to know exactly which one is being referred to. https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg
But I couldn't find any tweet that openly calls for violence either way. Mostly seems to be reactions and criticism about Israel's ongoing killing of civilians in Gaza, which would hardly count as terrorism (edit: well, at least shouldn't).
But I couldn't find any tweet that openly calls for violence either way. Mostly seems to be reactions and criticism about Israel's ongoing killing of civilians in Gaza, which would hardly count as terrorism (edit: well, at least shouldn't).
UK Home Secretary Suella Braverman is on the very-far-right-authoritarian side of the government, and she's been very vocal in her support for Israel. It wouldn't surprise me at all to learn that detentions like these are at her direct instruction. Perhaps not at a "lift this guy" level, but certainly at the level of directing the authorities to step up their harassment of people.
It is likely the following tweet: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...
> I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation.
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
> I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation.
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
What I don’t understand, how is it considered resistance? I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no? Why would the aggressor be in a position of resistance? Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch? Aren’t those two things at odds with each other?
Edit: typo
Edit: typo
Are you unfamiliar with the oppression Palestinians experience? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_apartheid
18% of Israelis are Muslim. How many Jews are allowed in Gaza?
Are you trying to suggest that it's the Jews who are oppressed?
I'm saying that it's ridiculous to say it's an apartheid state when Israel has Muslims with full citizenship, but if Jew crossed into Gaza unarmed he would be slaughtered on the spot.
Palestine is an apartheid state. Israel is not.
Palestine is an apartheid state. Israel is not.
The better metric would be how many Arabs, including in the occupied territories, are Israelian citizens. By the way, apartheid doesn't depend on citizenship per se.
AFAICT, the West Bank could be called "an occupied territory", but Gaza definitely cannot. I don't know why people keep repeating this: Israel pulled out of Gaza 17 years ago and let it govern itself. A place can't be "occupied" when you don't have soldiers there and you're not administering the place.
How much self government do you really have when you are under embargoe by all neighbouring states, are not recognized as sovereign nation and depend dor basix essentials (water, fuel...) on the former occupier? It is an occupation by all measures but name.
How is it Israel's fault that they're embargoed by other neighboring states? And what's been keeping all the other states from supplying those basic essentials? Last I heard, they got a lot of humanitarian supplies from many other countries worldwide, even as far away as Japan.
AFAICT, Israel would rather just not deal with them at all. Countries shouldn't be forced to annex their neighbors and administer them. Didn't they even try to get Egypt to take Gaza back, and Egypt refused?
I'm sorry, this doesn't fit the definition of "occupation" at all.
AFAICT, Israel would rather just not deal with them at all. Countries shouldn't be forced to annex their neighbors and administer them. Didn't they even try to get Egypt to take Gaza back, and Egypt refused?
I'm sorry, this doesn't fit the definition of "occupation" at all.
[deleted]
Full citizenship? https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/21/middleeast/arab-israeli-citiz...
Have you read the linked page?
> Adam and Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans".[237] They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."
> Adam and Moodley cite the marriage law as an example of how Arab Israelis "resemble in many ways 'Colored' and Indian South Africans".[237] They write: "Both Israeli Palestinians and Colored and Indian South Africans are restricted to second-class citizen status when another ethnic group monopolizes state power, treats the minorities as intrinsically suspect, and legally prohibits their access to land or allocates civil service positions or per capita expenditure on education differentially between dominant and minority citizens."
>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?
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?
You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed. You could make an argument for "occupied" (although that in itself is debatable post 2005), but "annexed" does not make sense.
For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...
For those not familiar with background context of why i say post-2005, see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_disengagement_from_G...
>You have to imagine very hard to consider gaza to have been annexed
Israel didn't annex Gaza, it (via the UK) annexed Palestine upon its creation, with Gaza and the West Bank being the land that remains un-annexed.
Israel didn't annex Gaza, it (via the UK) annexed Palestine upon its creation, with Gaza and the West Bank being the land that remains un-annexed.
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 international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination.
To give a comparison, i think your argument would be the equivalent of saying ukraine annexed russia because they unilaterally left soviet union.
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 international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination.
To give a comparison, i think your argument would be the equivalent of saying ukraine annexed russia because they unilaterally left soviet union.
> 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 recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it.
> Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination.
That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.
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 recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it.
> Generally international law recognizes the right for ethnic groups to self-determination (Palestinians often rightly complain that they effectively have not had this in the modern period, but the right applies to both sides). It is not considered annexation for a group from one state to split off and form a new state via self-determination.
That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.
> E.g. the formation of South Ossetia on Georgian territory is widely recognised as either annexation or something morally equivalent to it.
I'm under the impression it is seen as occupation (not annexation) by russia with a thin vaneer over top. You still have a separate state being involved, with russia arguably continuing to be in control.
> That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.
Well there was significant migration to the area in the lead up, its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence. From what i understand there was a continous jewish presence in the region throughout history, albeit at various point as a much smaller minority.
I'm under the impression it is seen as occupation (not annexation) by russia with a thin vaneer over top. You still have a separate state being involved, with russia arguably continuing to be in control.
> That's arguably true for people who declare independence in the territory they're already living in. Not for people who settle on someone else's territory and then claim it as theirs.
Well there was significant migration to the area in the lead up, its not like the jews just showed up in 1948 and declared independence. From what i understand there was a continous jewish presence in the region throughout history, albeit at various point as a much smaller minority.
> 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 and ultimately lead to the holocaust).
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 and ultimately lead to the holocaust).
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 number in absolute terms, there was certainly nothing like a modern census, but i think its more than enough to counter the narrative that there were no jews there right up until just before 1948.
To be clear not saying the jewish population didn't significantly expand in the 40's, it clearly did (at the same time many of those were basically forced from their previous homes, which i don't think fits with the "colonist" metaphor as that usually implies more choice), just that there were always jews in the region.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_history_of_Jerusal...
There's certainly reasons one could doubt the number in absolute terms, there was certainly nothing like a modern census, but i think its more than enough to counter the narrative that there were no jews there right up until just before 1948.
To be clear not saying the jewish population didn't significantly expand in the 40's, it clearly did (at the same time many of those were basically forced from their previous homes, which i don't think fits with the "colonist" metaphor as that usually implies more choice), just that there were always jews in the region.
> 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 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.)
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.)
> 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.
Really? My grandfather talked about having to intercept or shoot the boatloads that were arriving illegally, and not being able to catch them all, and a quick look into the history seems to back that up.
Really? My grandfather talked about having to intercept or shoot the boatloads that were arriving illegally, and not being able to catch them all, and a quick look into the history seems to back that up.
This analogy fails because it would require Poland to also close their border.
Gaza is essentially half controlled by Egypt.
Gaza is essentially half controlled by Egypt.
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.
>No, beheading children and torturing them in front of their parents
There's absolutely no evidence this happened.
There's absolutely no evidence this happened.
[deleted]
> There's absolutely no evidence this happened.
There's evidence that Hamas beheaded children I haven't seen any evidence they tortured them infant of their parents.
There's evidence that Hamas beheaded children I haven't seen any evidence they tortured them infant of their parents.
Right and Israel bombing civilian dense Gaza is passively evil?
Bombs are brutal.
Bombs are brutal.
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.
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.
Your analogy is wrong because Jews were there before Arabs.
It's like saying that Cherokee would be colonizers if they moved to North Carolina, which is their original homeland before they were forced to move to Oklahoma (the Trail of Tears).
It's like saying that Cherokee would be colonizers if they moved to North Carolina, which is their original homeland before they were forced to move to Oklahoma (the Trail of Tears).
That hasn't been true since Hadrian
Weren't the Philistines in the old testament the ancestors of the Palestinians? Meaning they were there first presumably, since the Israelites had to fight them to take the region in the first place
My (possibly incorrect) understanding is that this goes all the way back to Jacob and Esau, if one considers the Bible as purely a historical reference and not a religious text.
Of course not. Their ancestors are Egyptians and Algerians who came to work for the British between 1919-1947.
The Philistines settled in a small part of modern Israel at around 1175 BC, and disappeared (were assimilated) by the 5th century BC.
Roman Judea was renamed to Palestine in 135 AD (after the Philistines) by the Romans after numerous revolts by the Jews attempting to overthrow their colonizers.
It was freed from Roman colonialism in 634 AD... by being colonized by Arabs. Many empires colonized it afterwards, the last being the British.
Most of today's Israelis are from Muslim countries, some are from Europe, and the rest never left. But many of Arabs of the land (which have adopted the name Palestinians after the province, not the people) are from neighboring countries.
Roman Judea was renamed to Palestine in 135 AD (after the Philistines) by the Romans after numerous revolts by the Jews attempting to overthrow their colonizers.
It was freed from Roman colonialism in 634 AD... by being colonized by Arabs. Many empires colonized it afterwards, the last being the British.
Most of today's Israelis are from Muslim countries, some are from Europe, and the rest never left. But many of Arabs of the land (which have adopted the name Palestinians after the province, not the people) are from neighboring countries.
So we can go back to antiquity to make territorial claims? Hell, better not tell that the Persians, Romans and Mongols! Or the British... Maybe Macedonia wants another shot at conquering India so, who knows?
When you have to go back 1300 years to justify an apartheid regime, maybe you should ask yourself a few questions.
Or... when you have to go back 1300 years to shed light on a complex issue, naive people should consider that they might not fully grasp the basis of the conflict
That's a classic handwave to avoid going into the fundamental merit of the problem: which is that, based on claims that were last valid more than 1000 years before, a fundamentally-theological apartheid state was installed and then supported with brutal force, pursuing a slow but methodical ethnic cleansing of the land. Unlike similar efforts in previous centuries (i.e. the purge of Native Americans, Aboriginal Australians, or pre-Colombian South Americans), the Israeli effort doesn't even have the excuse of philosophical immaturity of the mainstream: it was pursued well after the post-colonial fundamentals had already been established between WWI and WWII. These are hard facts, no matter how you spin who started what in which year.
The sad thing is, there is now, realistically, no way out of the current situation that involves reconciliation - that chance was missed in the last century. The animosity is now likely unsurmountable, the military disparity is entrenched for good, and a sustainable resolution can only involve the complete purge of Gaza and West Bank. Israeli citizens have chosen to belong to another nationalistic ethnostate, right when the Western mainstream started to move towards more modern and inclusive models of statehood - ironically, on the example of Israel's best ally. As such, they are busy repeating all the sins such states have been guilty of during less enlightened ages.
The sad thing is, there is now, realistically, no way out of the current situation that involves reconciliation - that chance was missed in the last century. The animosity is now likely unsurmountable, the military disparity is entrenched for good, and a sustainable resolution can only involve the complete purge of Gaza and West Bank. Israeli citizens have chosen to belong to another nationalistic ethnostate, right when the Western mainstream started to move towards more modern and inclusive models of statehood - ironically, on the example of Israel's best ally. As such, they are busy repeating all the sins such states have been guilty of during less enlightened ages.
> a fundamentally-theological apartheid state was installed and then supported with brutal force
This is also a handwave.
Minor quibble over "theological" - I think "tribal" would fit better. Humans are a funny animal.
The chance for peace was extremely slim. It's been an existential conflict since before 1948, and Camp David's alternative required that the doves on both sides be stronger than the hawks. Unfortunately, there's an asymmetry there.
This is also a handwave.
Minor quibble over "theological" - I think "tribal" would fit better. Humans are a funny animal.
The chance for peace was extremely slim. It's been an existential conflict since before 1948, and Camp David's alternative required that the doves on both sides be stronger than the hawks. Unfortunately, there's an asymmetry there.
There's nothing wrong with "nationalistic ethnostates", that's just a weird way to say "nation" (ethnicity is fractal).
The problem is the countries that are empires : where non-national ethnicities are subjects. This includes Israel because of its control of Cisjordania and, yes, also the USA (though to be fair, there's hardly anything left of the Native Americans, and as you say, they get the excuse of immaturity).
The problem is the countries that are empires : where non-national ethnicities are subjects. This includes Israel because of its control of Cisjordania and, yes, also the USA (though to be fair, there's hardly anything left of the Native Americans, and as you say, they get the excuse of immaturity).
I suppose you refer to the relatively short period that Israel existed almost 3000 years ago? And we're just conveniently forgetting about all the people who lived there before and after that?
It is never acceptable, under any circumstances, to wholesale slaughter, rape, torture, and desecrate innocent civilians.
Pick a fight with the government, not senior citizens at a bus stop.
What Hamas did on 7 October wasn’t a “counter-attack,” it was literal genocide.
Pick a fight with the government, not senior citizens at a bus stop.
What Hamas did on 7 October wasn’t a “counter-attack,” it was literal genocide.
Well people view israel as the aggressor because they have been pushing palestinians off their land by force (as for the truth of this claim, ive no clue, consult an expert)
It could be considered resistance to the ongoing occupation of Gaza and the war crimes that Israel commits there (according to Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, B’Tselem etc)?
Gaza isn't occupied, it's besieged. Has been for about 15 years; before that it was occupied (and settled). Before that it was under Egyptian administration, and before that it was under UN administration.
Nobody has ever annexed Gaza.
Nobody has ever annexed Gaza.
xdennis(1)
> Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch?
I mean, russia did make that claim, in essence that they were resisting nato expansion.
In fact i would say its a pretty common thing across many conflicts. The side that starts the conflict usually tries to shift blame (whether legitly or not) to the other side because its bad PR to be seen as the side starting shit.
This particular conflict is complex as the sides have basically been in low levels of conflict (and somdtimes not so low) for about a century, however the oct 7 attack by hamas seems like a totally new level of violence and crime against humanity compared to what came before.
I mean, russia did make that claim, in essence that they were resisting nato expansion.
In fact i would say its a pretty common thing across many conflicts. The side that starts the conflict usually tries to shift blame (whether legitly or not) to the other side because its bad PR to be seen as the side starting shit.
This particular conflict is complex as the sides have basically been in low levels of conflict (and somdtimes not so low) for about a century, however the oct 7 attack by hamas seems like a totally new level of violence and crime against humanity compared to what came before.
The Hamas attack was as despicable as they get. As far as terror attacks go, it is right up there with 9/11. As is Israels reaction.
In case its not clear, i agree. Actually i think it was much worse than 9/11.
If the international community cared about international law the ICC would be issuing warrants against hamas for crimes against humannity.
If the international community cared about international law the ICC would be issuing warrants against hamas for crimes against humannity.
I guess we can put that on list of all those other crimes that never got prosecuted in Den Hague. Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction?
> Remind me so, who did ratify that court and refuses that their milotary falls under its jurisdiction?
Brundi and the Philippines? Maybe i misunderstand your question as i don't know what you are getting at.
Israel has never ratified. However Palestine did ratify so the ICC does have juridsiction here.
Brundi and the Philippines? Maybe i misunderstand your question as i don't know what you are getting at.
Israel has never ratified. However Palestine did ratify so the ICC does have juridsiction here.
[deleted]
The tweet refers to the "coming genocide" which seems to be a reference to Israel's plan to invade more of Palestine.
> Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch?
If the Ukranian army starts entering internationally recognized Russian territory and killing civilians, then if the citizens of that territory were to fight back, that could accurately be called "armed resistance".
> I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no?
Israel has been illegally occupying and settling parts of Palestine for a long time. The most recent flare-up was trigger by reprehensible attacks from Hamas, but there is a long history of violence and aggression by both sides and lots of shared responsibility on both sides for the many needless civilian deaths. However I tend to hold Israel more responsible because of two factors: 1) Israel is wealthier and more powerful 2) Israelis consistently kill more Palestinians than vice versa.
> Would this be akin to claiming Russia is in “armed resistance” after throwing the first punch?
If the Ukranian army starts entering internationally recognized Russian territory and killing civilians, then if the citizens of that territory were to fight back, that could accurately be called "armed resistance".
> I was under the impression they were the aggressor, no?
Israel has been illegally occupying and settling parts of Palestine for a long time. The most recent flare-up was trigger by reprehensible attacks from Hamas, but there is a long history of violence and aggression by both sides and lots of shared responsibility on both sides for the many needless civilian deaths. However I tend to hold Israel more responsible because of two factors: 1) Israel is wealthier and more powerful 2) Israelis consistently kill more Palestinians than vice versa.
> every act
Oof. I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but that's just too broad.
Oof. I am very sympathetic to the Palestinian plight, but that's just too broad.
It's not like Israel was hiding that it was going for Gaza beforehand anyways.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-m...
https://www.timesofisrael.com/then-we-retake-gaza-hardline-m...
In other words, he opposes war except when he agrees with it.
Even the most hawkish person would probably say the same thing. "War is terrible except when i think one side is justified" is hardly a pacifist take.
Even the most hawkish person would probably say the same thing. "War is terrible except when i think one side is justified" is hardly a pacifist take.
Speaking of hawkish persons, you're reducing what Craig terms "genocide" to war.
He's claiming that it is justified because israel might commit genocide at some unspecified time in the future, despite that being unlikely. It seems like a rediculous argument to me. Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet. It seems more an attempt to deflect the criticism that hamas has comitted genocide.
Was 9/11 justified because america might commit genocide in the future? Sure it hasn't happened yet but still might because time hasn't ended?
Was 9/11 justified because america might commit genocide in the future? Sure it hasn't happened yet but still might because time hasn't ended?
May be you're right. I'm no expert. And I'm certainly not Craig to tell you just what their thinking was/is.
> Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet.
Speaking of experts, see this piece by an Isareli historian Raz Segal (who's also a controversial figure, because nothing about this conflict is without controversy): https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
> Nobody has a crystal ball - you can't justify actions based on things that haven't happened yet.
Speaking of experts, see this piece by an Isareli historian Raz Segal (who's also a controversial figure, because nothing about this conflict is without controversy): https://jewishcurrents.org/a-textbook-case-of-genocide
Unlikely? The UN have already issued a warning:
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/gaza-un-expe...
This article is headlined and leads with an accusation about the recent hospital tragedy being due to an Israeli air strike. I believe that the preponderance of sources (neutral or otherwise) have attributed that explosion to a malfunctioning PIJ/Hamas rocket or missile .
The press release is kind of undermined by using as its premise that israel targeted Al Ahli Arab Hospital despite there being significant evidence that it was actually a Palestinian group that did that.
The article doesn't seem to be using an evidence based approach.
The article doesn't seem to be using an evidence based approach.
Just for the record, there are also claims supported by evidence, that Israel did it.
No conclusions should be made about that incident, either way. Other than the fact that innocent people are being slaughtered because of hatred.
No conclusions should be made about that incident, either way. Other than the fact that innocent people are being slaughtered because of hatred.
You fell for Qatari state and Hamas terrorist propaganda. All physical evidence points to a more minor event caused by a failed rocket within Gaza. Only the initial confusion caused the ridiculous claims of 500 dead and the entire hospital up in flames to spread. Do some light reading based on current understanding that isn’t Al Jazeera.
“Israel, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada said that their intelligence sources indicate the cause of the explosion was a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) from within Gaza, while the PIJ has denied any involvement. Hamas said that Israel carried out an airstrike on the hospital. Most experts speaking in the days after the strike agreed with the Israel Defense Forces' analysis that a misfired Palestinian rocket launched at Israel from within Gaza and captured on video was the likely cause of the explosion.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explos...
“Israel, the United States, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada said that their intelligence sources indicate the cause of the explosion was a failed rocket launch by the Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) from within Gaza, while the PIJ has denied any involvement. Hamas said that Israel carried out an airstrike on the hospital. Most experts speaking in the days after the strike agreed with the Israel Defense Forces' analysis that a misfired Palestinian rocket launched at Israel from within Gaza and captured on video was the likely cause of the explosion.”
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ahli_Arab_Hospital_explos...
> Just for the record, there are also claims supported by evidence, that Israel did it.
I've seen no convincing evidence that shows that Israel did it, the creator and damage size is way too small for any Israeli bomb or missile even airburst does not match the features found at the explosion.
I've seen no convincing evidence that shows that Israel did it, the creator and damage size is way too small for any Israeli bomb or missile even airburst does not match the features found at the explosion.
Even Gandhi allowed for armed conflict where there is no peaceful alternative, and Nelson Mandela was in a paramilitary group.
The difference between a pacifist and a hawk is the frequency of such appeals and the definition of its necessity.
I've always been a pacifist, but I struggle to condemn the actions of a populace that has now been subjected to brutal apartheid conditions for several generations.
The difference between a pacifist and a hawk is the frequency of such appeals and the definition of its necessity.
I've always been a pacifist, but I struggle to condemn the actions of a populace that has now been subjected to brutal apartheid conditions for several generations.
In the UK there's the concept of a 'proscribed organisation', that is an organisation which is illegal and the promotion of that organisation is illegal.
Hamas is on the proscribed organisation list.
Here's the relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12
And the list of proscribed organisations and a more accessible explanation of the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...
I think most people in the UK think of this law as being about the Troubles and banning the IRA, etc, but it looks like the list is mostly Islamic extremist groups now.
This law is very clearly being selectively enforced, as lots of people have "express[ed] an opinion or belief that is supportive of" Hamas in recent days, but the police aren't knocking at their doors. (Yet.)
Hamas is on the proscribed organisation list.
Here's the relevant legislation: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/12
And the list of proscribed organisations and a more accessible explanation of the law: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/proscribed-terror...
I think most people in the UK think of this law as being about the Troubles and banning the IRA, etc, but it looks like the list is mostly Islamic extremist groups now.
This law is very clearly being selectively enforced, as lots of people have "express[ed] an opinion or belief that is supportive of" Hamas in recent days, but the police aren't knocking at their doors. (Yet.)
>This law is very clearly being selectively enforced, as lots of people have "express[ed] an opinion or belief that is supportive of" Hamas in recent days, but the police aren't knocking at their doors. (Yet.)
Every law in the UK is selectively enforced. Except maybe laws regarding speeding if they have evidence.
The laws in this country are so vague that I am certain that every adult has broken some of them.
If the Police don't like you, they just pick something vaguely relevant which you have probably broken and hassle you for it.
Every law in the UK is selectively enforced. Except maybe laws regarding speeding if they have evidence.
The laws in this country are so vague that I am certain that every adult has broken some of them.
If the Police don't like you, they just pick something vaguely relevant which you have probably broken and hassle you for it.
> The laws in this country are so vague that I am certain that every adult has broken some of them.
Sounds like India learnt a thing or two from the British, here.
Sounds like India learnt a thing or two from the British, here.
It's just always been the case, everywhere. The history of Law is effectively about the powerless (or rather the less-powerful) slowly carving out all circumstances in which they cannot be thrown in prison on a whim.
Well, not necessarily everywhere. In the lens of history, new countries with a new constitution don't have that problem. Over time, they create layers of new laws, then cruft when those laws make little sense to enforce, then they can crack down on the letter of that law when enforcement is socially acceptable.
The thing about these types of laws is that they can show up years later - so a positive opinion of Hamas gets prosecuted in 3-5 years later.
Thanks for posting the official position of the UK state. I was curious how many far right, non-Islamic organisations are listed as proscribed organisations so I counted them:
* Atomwaffen Division (AWD)
* Feuerkrieg Division (FKD)
* Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD)
* National Action
* The Base
Out of all these, I’d only heard of National Action.
It’s not clear (to me) that all the proscribed groups are actually active in the UK though, with the Internet, I guess they can be recruiting people to their cause.
I also wasn’t too surprised to see that the most recent addition to the list is the Wagner Group (proscribed in September 2023).
On the other hand, I was surprised to see that Basque separatists, ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) are still listed – despite the fact that they renounced the armed struggle over a decade ago and dissolved their organisation five years ago.
Curiously, their “List of proscribed groups linked to Northern Ireland related terrorism” is even more out-of-date. Since the second-wave of feminism, Cumann na mBan is essentially an historical relic. Some of the organisations (e.g. Saor Éire) haven’t been active since the 70s. The IPLO were (violently) eliminated in the early 90s. The Irish Republican Army is listed but there’s no distinction made between the multiple different groups that refer to themselves as the “Irish Republican Army”; the largest of these (by far), the Provisional IRA abandoned the armed struggle two decades ago and committed themselves to constitutional means of achieving their political aims (as per the 1998 Belfast Agreement aka the Good Friday Agreement) – though splinter IRAs remain opposed to the Peace Process.
* Atomwaffen Division (AWD)
* Feuerkrieg Division (FKD)
* Sonnenkrieg Division (SKD)
* National Action
* The Base
Out of all these, I’d only heard of National Action.
It’s not clear (to me) that all the proscribed groups are actually active in the UK though, with the Internet, I guess they can be recruiting people to their cause.
I also wasn’t too surprised to see that the most recent addition to the list is the Wagner Group (proscribed in September 2023).
On the other hand, I was surprised to see that Basque separatists, ETA (Euskadi Ta Askatasuna) are still listed – despite the fact that they renounced the armed struggle over a decade ago and dissolved their organisation five years ago.
Curiously, their “List of proscribed groups linked to Northern Ireland related terrorism” is even more out-of-date. Since the second-wave of feminism, Cumann na mBan is essentially an historical relic. Some of the organisations (e.g. Saor Éire) haven’t been active since the 70s. The IPLO were (violently) eliminated in the early 90s. The Irish Republican Army is listed but there’s no distinction made between the multiple different groups that refer to themselves as the “Irish Republican Army”; the largest of these (by far), the Provisional IRA abandoned the armed struggle two decades ago and committed themselves to constitutional means of achieving their political aims (as per the 1998 Belfast Agreement aka the Good Friday Agreement) – though splinter IRAs remain opposed to the Peace Process.
Isn't "The Base" == Al Qaeda?
According to this list, this particular group is described as:
> The Base is a predominantly US based militant white supremacist group, formed in 2018. It draws influence from a collection of essays by prominent National Socialist, James Mason, which advocate the use of violence to initiate the collapse of modern society through a ‘race war’ and the subsequent creation of a white ethno-state. This ideology is known as ‘accelerationism’.
Al Qa’ida (AQ) are listed separately:
> Inspired and led by Usama Bin Laden, its aims are the expulsion of Western forces from Saudi Arabia, the destruction of Israel and the end of Western influence in the Muslim world.
> The Base is a predominantly US based militant white supremacist group, formed in 2018. It draws influence from a collection of essays by prominent National Socialist, James Mason, which advocate the use of violence to initiate the collapse of modern society through a ‘race war’ and the subsequent creation of a white ethno-state. This ideology is known as ‘accelerationism’.
Al Qa’ida (AQ) are listed separately:
> Inspired and led by Usama Bin Laden, its aims are the expulsion of Western forces from Saudi Arabia, the destruction of Israel and the end of Western influence in the Muslim world.
No, although the name was likely picked to cause exactly such confusion. 'Al Qaeda' is commonly translated as 'the base' but there's no connection between the two. AQ was a pretty elaborate and complex organization in its heyday though it seems mostly moribund now. The Base existed mostly virtually and was more focused on promoting stochastic terrorism by disseminating incitement and instructional materials, but without any real infrastructure/finance.
The UK is very worried about Scottish Independence. Mr Murray is a very vocal supporter of that, and an active figurehead in the independence movement.
I don't know, but I'm assuming that his support of Hamas is a nice pretext for the British Establishment to have another pop at him.
As we predicted when the UK proposed these monstrous laws: they are being abused to go after anyone who annoys the establishment. That's what they were always intended to do. The whole "terrorist" thing was a way of getting popular support for them, just like the popular fears of child abuse have been used to pass yet more police state surveillance laws.
I don't know, but I'm assuming that his support of Hamas is a nice pretext for the British Establishment to have another pop at him.
As we predicted when the UK proposed these monstrous laws: they are being abused to go after anyone who annoys the establishment. That's what they were always intended to do. The whole "terrorist" thing was a way of getting popular support for them, just like the popular fears of child abuse have been used to pass yet more police state surveillance laws.
How does this look in practice? I’m not saying you’re wrong but your formulation suggests that some faceless people at the British Establishment Country Club put down their whiskeys, ordained that mr Murray be bullied and so it went.
That’s the stuff of movies and dictatorships, right? Do random UK civil servants really abuse the system to this extent for personal or political gain?
That’s the stuff of movies and dictatorships, right? Do random UK civil servants really abuse the system to this extent for personal or political gain?
>but your formulation suggests that some faceless people at the British Establishment Country Club put down their whiskeys, ordained that mr Murray be bullied and so it went.
Whole departments are set up to work on internal "enemies of the state". Pressure from foreign governments (cough) also points to their undesirables. People above a certain station can trivially tell what is the establishment political winds, short and long term, and which are the "annoying" people that go against them. They also know that furthering the cause against them looks good to their superiors. They can and do build organizational "vendettas" and keep tabs, harass, prosecute them, for years, or even decades.
This goes all the way. Judges and prosecutors making decisions on such cases know who can help their career and what can hurt it, and so on. No explicit coordination needed, though there's a lot of that too - e.g. some established enterpreneur calling their favorite politician and asking them to "do something about that person", special interest groups created ad hoc, and so on. Check a comment by someone called Scott in TFA.
>That’s the stuff of movies and dictatorships, right?
Oh, sweet summer child.
Whole departments are set up to work on internal "enemies of the state". Pressure from foreign governments (cough) also points to their undesirables. People above a certain station can trivially tell what is the establishment political winds, short and long term, and which are the "annoying" people that go against them. They also know that furthering the cause against them looks good to their superiors. They can and do build organizational "vendettas" and keep tabs, harass, prosecute them, for years, or even decades.
This goes all the way. Judges and prosecutors making decisions on such cases know who can help their career and what can hurt it, and so on. No explicit coordination needed, though there's a lot of that too - e.g. some established enterpreneur calling their favorite politician and asking them to "do something about that person", special interest groups created ad hoc, and so on. Check a comment by someone called Scott in TFA.
>That’s the stuff of movies and dictatorships, right?
Oh, sweet summer child.
> faceless people at the British Establishment Country Club
That's roughly it.
The British Establishment (leaders of the main parties, intelligence officials, senior judges, senior police) wanted to make an example of him, because of his persistent exposure of their arbitary persecution of Assange. He was charged with contempt of court, for "jigsaw identification" of a witness in another case, that of Alex Salmond. That charge was prosecuted before a single judge, who was very much a member of "The Establishment", and he got 6 months in the slammer.
It's still not clear which remarks he made on his blog that contributed to jigsaw identification. Maybe it was a commenter on his blog that made the troublesome remark. But apparently other, more-mainstream journalists had been much more explicit, and most of the Scottish political class knew who the witness was from those sources, not from Craig's blog.
Basically, he was fitted-up for loudly espousing Scottish independence.
That's roughly it.
The British Establishment (leaders of the main parties, intelligence officials, senior judges, senior police) wanted to make an example of him, because of his persistent exposure of their arbitary persecution of Assange. He was charged with contempt of court, for "jigsaw identification" of a witness in another case, that of Alex Salmond. That charge was prosecuted before a single judge, who was very much a member of "The Establishment", and he got 6 months in the slammer.
It's still not clear which remarks he made on his blog that contributed to jigsaw identification. Maybe it was a commenter on his blog that made the troublesome remark. But apparently other, more-mainstream journalists had been much more explicit, and most of the Scottish political class knew who the witness was from those sources, not from Craig's blog.
Basically, he was fitted-up for loudly espousing Scottish independence.
> charged with contempt of court, for "jigsaw identification" of a witness in another case, that of Alex Salmond
Worth mentioning a couple of details about that case.
Alex Salmond was the leader of the Scottish independentist party.
Arrested in 2019 with the accusation of 14 instances of sexual abuses from 8 anonymous women.
The subsequent trial cleared him of all charges.
Worth mentioning a couple of details about that case.
Alex Salmond was the leader of the Scottish independentist party.
Arrested in 2019 with the accusation of 14 instances of sexual abuses from 8 anonymous women.
The subsequent trial cleared him of all charges.
And there's evidence (as Mr Murray documents, which was obviously his "real" crime) that this was all a fit-up by the current SNP leadership to discredit Mr Salmond so that they would be free from criticism from him about the lack of movement on independence and the SNP pivot from independence to culture war issues.
Also, probably, the reason that the SNP leadership are now pushing for jury-less trials for sexual abuse cases.
If true, it's a staggeringly cynical abuse of the Me Too movement, feminism and the wave of popular support for sexual abuse victims.
Also, probably, the reason that the SNP leadership are now pushing for jury-less trials for sexual abuse cases.
If true, it's a staggeringly cynical abuse of the Me Too movement, feminism and the wave of popular support for sexual abuse victims.
I am struck by the fact that you can be publicly disgraced while your accusers remain anonymous, and remain such (and I bet suffer no consequence) even after their accusations against you are proven false or irrelevant.
I don't know the details, but when 8 separate individuals accuse you, all without cause, it's hard to believe it's a coincidence.
I don't know the details, but when 8 separate individuals accuse you, all without cause, it's hard to believe it's a coincidence.
It wasn't a coincidence, it was a carefully co-ordinated campaign (as Mr Murray documented).
Yes, but you can strip "UK" away from that. People habitually and casually abuse their power in almost any instance they have it. If this sounds outlandish to you, that's really nice and you probably shouldn't take that naivete away from yourself. It won't improve your life to know otherwise.
> some faceless people at the British Establishment Country Club put down their whiskeys, ordained that mr Murray be bullied and so it went.
I don't mean to go off-topic, but the last few years have shown that this is how power and influence really works in our world. There is no other way to explain (for example) why no clients of Jeff Epstein's brothels have as yet been named and prosecuted. Conveniently, a few have identified themselves through their actions. But they are all free men still, with no signs of any pending comeuppance, or really even an investigation into their involvement.
I don't mean to go off-topic, but the last few years have shown that this is how power and influence really works in our world. There is no other way to explain (for example) why no clients of Jeff Epstein's brothels have as yet been named and prosecuted. Conveniently, a few have identified themselves through their actions. But they are all free men still, with no signs of any pending comeuppance, or really even an investigation into their involvement.
It's the same as any other large organisation. Someone at the top says "oi, so-and-so has been a real pain lately huh". Someone one level down says "is there anything we can do about so-and-so?". Someone the next level down says "well, let's start a file on so-and-so, see if he's up to anything, no harm in that". And then since UK antiterrorism law is terribly written (or brilliantly written, depending on your perspective) such that essentially everyone with even a vague interest in politics breaks it all the time, and the surveillance state means the proof will be a couple of keystrokes away, once you look for a reason to go after someone you find one.
Probably no-one sat down and designed the system to work like this. But it works well for everyone involved, so...
Probably no-one sat down and designed the system to work like this. But it works well for everyone involved, so...
I wonder if something for just this scenario exists in the archives of the political comedy Yes [Prime] Minister. It feels like there should be.
See also Private Eye. Just because it's funny doesn't mean it's not true.
Can you give an example of him supporting hammas?
I could not find any.
I could not find any.
What did it say? Tweet seemingly was removed.
Not sure how formatting will go, from desktop twitter:
Craig Murray - @CraigMurrayOrg To be entirely plain. I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation. But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support. If that is a crime, send me back to jail. 7:24 PM · Oct 14, 2023 · 167.9K Views
Craig Murray - @CraigMurrayOrg To be entirely plain. I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation. But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support. If that is a crime, send me back to jail. 7:24 PM · Oct 14, 2023 · 167.9K Views
Dang, he forgot to mention that one in the article…
Section 1 extends the offence of inviting support for a proscribed organisation in section 12 of the Terrorism Act 2000 to cover expressions of support that are reckless as to whether they will encourage others to support the organisation;
according to https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism
So the question is whether "I will support Hammas" constitutes "inviting support". That's not clear-cut to me. Probably be able to get him on section 12 though, "reckless" is a movable feast.
according to https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/terrorism
So the question is whether "I will support Hammas" constitutes "inviting support". That's not clear-cut to me. Probably be able to get him on section 12 though, "reckless" is a movable feast.
A bit dishonest from him, right? Given his background, he should know better and probably did.
xdennis(4)
I'm from the UK, and my instant reaction is that this is an evidence-free conspiracy-theory. If you have anything to back it up, other than vibes, feel free to say so.
Well, it's also possible they read his Tweet and looked at his background and said "this dangerous person really is going to conduct violent acts in this country, we have no choice but to thwart him by seizing all his electronic devices using the most powerful law in the land, even if it de-legitimizes our use of this law for more serious matters." But since that hypothesis is so obviously cartoonish, it's hard to blame folks who look for more rational explanations like "the government is harassing a political opponent" (whether they're right or wrong.)
> it's hard to blame folks who look for more rational explanations like "the government is harassing a political opponent" (whether they're right or wrong.)
No, it's not, because he's clearly being investigated for supporting Hamas' actions (which classified as a terrorist organization by the UK).
No, it's not, because he's clearly being investigated for supporting Hamas' actions (which classified as a terrorist organization by the UK).
I don't know anything about this person other than what's on his Wikipedia. And what that says is: he's a 65-year old former diplomat and noted human rights activist with (as far as I can tell) zero history of violence or terrorist acts.
If the government seriously thinks he's capable of following through on violent acts because he wrote a Tweet saying "I support Hamas", I suspect the government is badly mismanaging its anti-terrorism resources. If the government doesn't think he's going to follow up that Tweet with action and is "merely doing it because the law says they can", that's pretty much the definition of harassment.
If the government seriously thinks he's capable of following through on violent acts because he wrote a Tweet saying "I support Hamas", I suspect the government is badly mismanaging its anti-terrorism resources. If the government doesn't think he's going to follow up that Tweet with action and is "merely doing it because the law says they can", that's pretty much the definition of harassment.
You can’t be that naive, can you? It’s obviously not the Tweet they’re worried about. 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?”
Whether or not that’s enough to search him is another debate, but that’s what their thought process was when they decided to detain him.
Whether or not that’s enough to search him is another debate, but that’s what their thought process was when they decided to detain him.
No, I think that the tweet is an excuse that allows them to hassle him more, because he's a prominent supporter of Scottish Independence. I don't think this has anything to do with Hamas itself.
> 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 bloody git again, have we got anything we can pin him for this time?"; if you don't see that it's you who's being naive. (I'm agnostic about whether it's specifically about Scottish independence, the Assange case, or something else; one way or another he's a thorn in the side of the powerful, and that's why the book is being thrown at him)
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 bloody git again, have we got anything we can pin him for this time?"; if you don't see that it's you who's being naive. (I'm agnostic about whether it's specifically about Scottish independence, the Assange case, or something else; one way or another he's a thorn in the side of the powerful, and that's why the book is being thrown at him)
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.
your "instant reaction" is just as unhelpful as the proscribed "vibes"
> If you have anything to back it up, other than vibes, feel free to say so.
Just read the history of his recent legal hassles, which are a farcical misuse of legislation intended for other purposes. He went to jail for (basically) pointing out all the flaws in the prosecution's case against Alex Salmond.
As the old joke goes; It's not paranoia if they actually are out to get you ;)
Just read the history of his recent legal hassles, which are a farcical misuse of legislation intended for other purposes. He went to jail for (basically) pointing out all the flaws in the prosecution's case against Alex Salmond.
As the old joke goes; It's not paranoia if they actually are out to get you ;)
> that his support of Hamas
say what now? is there any proof he supports those terrorists? in which case, it's pretty clear why he was detained.
edit: found it: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...
yup, terrorism charges incoming. from the same guy that did this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/11/former-ambas...
say what now? is there any proof he supports those terrorists? in which case, it's pretty clear why he was detained.
edit: found it: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...
yup, terrorism charges incoming. from the same guy that did this: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/11/former-ambas...
Looks more to me like he's a human rights activist that has been targeted by the security state as Naom Chomsky et. al comments in the just posted article.
His own comments are about desperate measures when carpet bombed.
That you want to swiftly send him to jail tells me totalitarianism is becoming fashionable again.
His own comments are about desperate measures when carpet bombed.
That you want to swiftly send him to jail tells me totalitarianism is becoming fashionable again.
>That you want to swiftly send him to jail tells me totalitarianism is becoming fashionable again.
Every single human being alive has the capacity to manifest the totalitarian-authoritarian personality. We are not immune to it as individuals - our only safety from this viral meme is social. It is only when we have a social order that provides more motivation to eschew the totalitarian-authoritarian personality, at an individual level, that we are actually free of it. The irony is, this personality also arises when an individuals' own personality is challenged by society.
Every single human being alive has the capacity to manifest the totalitarian-authoritarian personality. We are not immune to it as individuals - our only safety from this viral meme is social. It is only when we have a social order that provides more motivation to eschew the totalitarian-authoritarian personality, at an individual level, that we are actually free of it. The irony is, this personality also arises when an individuals' own personality is challenged by society.
> That you want to swiftly send him to jail tells me totalitarianism is becoming fashionable again.
where did i write that? he'll have a fair trial according to the law. he can then convince the judge he doesn't actually support a terrorist organisation (as it's illegal to do that in the UK).
where did i write that? he'll have a fair trial according to the law. he can then convince the judge he doesn't actually support a terrorist organisation (as it's illegal to do that in the UK).
> he'll have a fair trial according to the law.
Yes, according to the law, his trial will be fair. The law doesn't around admitting it isn't fair.
But what do you know, I looked under the robe and wig of the law, and would you believe it was just a person! An ugly, naked, shameless person at that.
In reality, there will be no fairness if smirking people like you get your way.
Yes, according to the law, his trial will be fair. The law doesn't around admitting it isn't fair.
But what do you know, I looked under the robe and wig of the law, and would you believe it was just a person! An ugly, naked, shameless person at that.
In reality, there will be no fairness if smirking people like you get your way.
> But what do you know, I looked under the robe and wig of the law, and would you believe it was just a person! An ugly, naked, shameless person at that.
you did what now?
you did what now?
He said every act by Hamas is justified, a week after Hamas murdered 1400 people. As terrorism support goes, you can't be any clearer. He's not "human rights activist", at least human rights of murdered Israelis don't concern him a single little bit. He's pro-terrorist activist who is open and brazen at calling on terrorists to murder more civilians right after they murdered 1400 of them. He's not some innocent bystander. He specifically thrust himself into this on the side of terrorists.
I am not sure I want to give the government the power to prosecute even such disgusting people, because I can't trust the government with such powers. But pretending like he is completely uninvolved and it's just random out of the blue thing when he specifically endorsed terrorists is bullshit.
I am not sure I want to give the government the power to prosecute even such disgusting people, because I can't trust the government with such powers. But pretending like he is completely uninvolved and it's just random out of the blue thing when he specifically endorsed terrorists is bullshit.
Man, the more I looked into this guy and his co., the more I learnt what a piece of work this guy is.
If he goes to pro Hamas rallies days after Hamas started war with Israel it's kinda hard not to make this conclusion.
Is it? Most members of the Conservative Party would be overjoyed at Scottish independence - it would give them a permanent majority (or at least, would have done had they not had their ridiculous dalliance with Liz Truss).
The Conservative Party have always been against the breakup of the United Kingdom. I'm not a member so I don't know why, but I suspect any/all of the following: loss of North Sea Oil rights, history, weird effect on the monarchy, reunified Ireland immediately afterwards, Scotland rejoining the EU leaving England and Wales as this weird little bit of non-EU island.
I don't think there's any PM who wants to be the PM who allowed the UK to break up.
Luckily for them, as Mr Murray's blog details, the SNP is very comfortable being Westminster MPs and aren't that interested in actually doing anything about independence.
I don't think there's any PM who wants to be the PM who allowed the UK to break up.
Luckily for them, as Mr Murray's blog details, the SNP is very comfortable being Westminster MPs and aren't that interested in actually doing anything about independence.
Pro Palestine doesn’t necessarily mean pro Hamas. It usually doesn’t, but of course some people (pro Israel usually) always manipulate/turn it that way. So please let us know where it shows he is pro Hamas vs pro Palestine (and actually against Hamas, which is what I would expect he is).
He explicitly stated his support for Hamas and Hezbollah in this tweet: https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...
Ah indeed he did. Jikes, he gets his wish then.
Somehow every time somebody goes out to prove "it doesn't mean pro Hamas" it turns out it does. Maybe there's some pattern in it - like if a guy goes to pro Hamas rallies just days after Hamas brutally murdered 1400 people, there's a tiny bit of suspicion he might be pro Hamas?
these days Murray is an embarassment to anyone he associates with
if anything the UK gov would want him freely associating with the SNP
not locked up where he's prevented from embarrassing them
if anything the UK gov would want him freely associating with the SNP
not locked up where he's prevented from embarrassing them
He's pretty anti-SNP these days
> The UK is very worried about Scottish Independence. Mr Murray is a very vocal supporter of that, and an active figurehead in the independence movement.
>
>I don't know, but I'm assuming that his support of Hamas is a nice pretext for the British Establishment to have another pop at him.
Murray is also a crank and conspiracy theorist, who has been a vociferous supporter of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian regime.
Saying this is about Scottish independence is hilarious.
Murray is also a crank and conspiracy theorist, who has been a vociferous supporter of Bashar al-Assad and the Syrian regime.
Saying this is about Scottish independence is hilarious.
Take this however you will - I'm pretty far from Craig Murray politically but he seems sincere in his beliefs and doesn't seem to care who he upsets.
And in terms of who he has upset, he has lots of recent run-ins with the SNP in Scotland. He is currently appealing a sentence he got for "jigsaw-identifying" the woman/women that accused Alex Salmond (previous head of SNP) of rape/sexual assault, on the basis that he believed that Alex Salmond was falsely accused on the basis of some SNP in-fighting.
Outside of what Craig is alleging, SNP the party seems to see themselves as synonymous with the Scottish government and several senior legal positions seem to be in their gift with constitutional implications.
And in terms of who he has upset, he has lots of recent run-ins with the SNP in Scotland. He is currently appealing a sentence he got for "jigsaw-identifying" the woman/women that accused Alex Salmond (previous head of SNP) of rape/sexual assault, on the basis that he believed that Alex Salmond was falsely accused on the basis of some SNP in-fighting.
Outside of what Craig is alleging, SNP the party seems to see themselves as synonymous with the Scottish government and several senior legal positions seem to be in their gift with constitutional implications.
He cites "support for Palestine" in his first paragraph. It's not "zero ties to anything violent" if you didn't sleep through the last month. I mean, he probably isn't a member of Hamas or anything like that, but he very well may have donated to Hamas-affiliated NGO, either knowingly or unknowingly. It'd be not a huge link but also not zero link. He also publicly endorsed Hamas and Hezbolah in his tweets and dared the security services to arrest him. Also not zero. Well, now he got his wish as if seems.
He explicitly and unambiguously expressed his support for Hamas and Hezbollah here:
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...
> I was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act
> I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer.
> I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.
> I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
This is what I find so terrifying about the terrorism act. I cannot understand how this is legal. The right to silence and privacy should be a human right.
> I was not arrested but detained, and therefore had no right to a lawyer.
> I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.
> I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
This is what I find so terrifying about the terrorism act. I cannot understand how this is legal. The right to silence and privacy should be a human right.
Just an FYI
Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you
Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out.
He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to
Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored
Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you
Most of those claims were BS but you have to call their bluff to find out.
He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords, and they will always tell you that you have to
Edit: "allowed to" as in there's no consequences because of how difficult it is to prosecute them. It's intentionally ignored
Is the "detained without a lawyer" thing actually true in the UK? It was my understanding in the US, that's a pretty concrete feature, and law enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.
My understanding is that Schedule 7 applies at points of entry to the UK, where you have limited rights even as a citizen.
Edit more info from the Scottish police (the institution in question):
https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedul...
Edit more info from the Scottish police (the institution in question):
https://www.scotland.police.uk/about-us/how-we-do-it/schedul...
Google Chicago PD blacksites
It's a feature they aren't afraid of ignoring
It's a feature they aren't afraid of ignoring
If the UK authorities are extraordinarily rendering people to Chicago, that would be quite something. Rwanda was bad enough.
Take him to detroit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4a-oxOndo
Yes, in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases. During that time, you can be questioned, and if you do not answer, then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt ("why did you not say you were just out walking your dog when first asked?").
"You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence."
(The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights )
This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)
(The 'Police Caution', see: https://www.gov.uk/arrested-your-rights )
This is, as I understand it, very different to the US right against self-incrimination where the courts are specifically not allowed to infer guilt from silence. (Although I suspect many juries may be influenced negatively by someone remaining silent, despite direction.)
Except (as I hear it) that's not even true in the US. Apparently, it's not enough to stay silent - you actually have to say that you are exercising the right to be silent, otherwise they are allowed to infer guilt from silence.
In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to tell me the truth about my rights and responsibilities, and because of the power imbalance, I will wait until I have independent legal advice before participating any further in this interview".
In a very similar way, if I were ever detained in this manner in the UK, I'd be very likely to say "I am not refusing right now to answer your questions. However, since I cannot trust you to tell me the truth about my rights and responsibilities, and because of the power imbalance, I will wait until I have independent legal advice before participating any further in this interview".
I think you can politely stick to "I'd like to wait for a lawyer please." Less is more.
Except if questioned under schedule 7 of the terrorism act of 2000, maybe.
IANAL. Ask an actual lawyer for advice!
Except if questioned under schedule 7 of the terrorism act of 2000, maybe.
IANAL. Ask an actual lawyer for advice!
Even the right to a lawyer has been denied because a judge chose to endorse a police interpretation of "I want a lawyer dawg" as a nonsense request for a dog-attourney.
> in the UK you can be detained for 36 hours without the right to a lawyer, or 48 hours for suspected terrorism cases
That's if you've been arrested which doesn't apply in this case. He was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act which allows up to 6 hours of detention without cause and up to an hour without legal advice.
> During that time, ...then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt
I don't believe that's true in the case where legal advice has been restricted by the police. As per PACE Code C. It is however true if you have legal advice or if you've refused legal advice.
Edit: This last bit wrt PACE Code C applies to someone who is arrested. Under Section 7 it can be a criminal offence to not answer the examining officer's questions, as Craig Murray mentioned.
That's if you've been arrested which doesn't apply in this case. He was detained under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act which allows up to 6 hours of detention without cause and up to an hour without legal advice.
> During that time, ...then your lack of answer can be used by a court to infer guilt
I don't believe that's true in the case where legal advice has been restricted by the police. As per PACE Code C. It is however true if you have legal advice or if you've refused legal advice.
Edit: This last bit wrt PACE Code C applies to someone who is arrested. Under Section 7 it can be a criminal offence to not answer the examining officer's questions, as Craig Murray mentioned.
[deleted]
I think the court does actually take into account why you refuse to answer. If it's "because I was waiting for my lawyer to arrive, and then I answered the question just fine", I'm not sure a court could rightly draw an adverse inference there.
The "we can infer guilt" seems to be more because there's a bunch of corner cases where an absolute right to silence CAN have kind of stupid outcomes. Many countries choose to accept those outcomes because they don't want to convict the innocent. Britain -otoh- seems to try to thread the needle here by giving the judge a bit of leeway.
But I'm not an expert on british law. I just online-searched the the heck out of it.
The "we can infer guilt" seems to be more because there's a bunch of corner cases where an absolute right to silence CAN have kind of stupid outcomes. Many countries choose to accept those outcomes because they don't want to convict the innocent. Britain -otoh- seems to try to thread the needle here by giving the judge a bit of leeway.
But I'm not an expert on british law. I just online-searched the the heck out of it.
Under Section 7 of the Terrorism Act you can be detained for up to an hour without access to legal advice. That's very likely why they were so diligent in keeping it to an hour.
>> enforcement can't actually compel you to do anything without a trip through the courts.
In theory, but there are so many exceptions that it isn't really a thing in practice. Driving a car? You have to identify yourself. Crossing a boarder? You are open to total inspection. Using a credit card, your transaction is open to inspection and you need to identify. Called as a witness? You have to participate by answering questions. You can even be imprisoned, for years, as a "material witness" without any hint of accusation. They sometimes do need a "trip through the courts" but that doesn't mean you are going to be part of that trip, or even know about it until after the warrants have been issued. The list of exemptions from the default rules allowing silence are so long as to make them meaningless.
In theory, but there are so many exceptions that it isn't really a thing in practice. Driving a car? You have to identify yourself. Crossing a boarder? You are open to total inspection. Using a credit card, your transaction is open to inspection and you need to identify. Called as a witness? You have to participate by answering questions. You can even be imprisoned, for years, as a "material witness" without any hint of accusation. They sometimes do need a "trip through the courts" but that doesn't mean you are going to be part of that trip, or even know about it until after the warrants have been issued. The list of exemptions from the default rules allowing silence are so long as to make them meaningless.
> He didn't have to answer questions or give them passwords
Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requires that if you know the information required and refuse to provide it, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment.
However, the notice must be given properly in writing.
So, while these officers perhaps were deceitful in asking verbally for passwords rather than giving a written notice, the meaning of what they were saying was still correct - there is a legal requirement to hand over passwords.
Section 49 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 requires that if you know the information required and refuse to provide it, you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment.
However, the notice must be given properly in writing.
So, while these officers perhaps were deceitful in asking verbally for passwords rather than giving a written notice, the meaning of what they were saying was still correct - there is a legal requirement to hand over passwords.
Man, I totally forgot my password. Over the last 3 weeks I started forgetting passwords, only passwords. (Make note to mention this offhand to my dr at next appointment)
As I said in another comment - even though obviously there is no objective way to prove it, like many other things in the justice system it's about what the judge/jury will believe. If they pull up logs that show you've used your password just before your interrogation then you can bet you'll be found guilty even if you really forgot the password.
Those are the kinds of cases that should be handled through jury nullification - too bad it's a crime to explain that right and how it should be used to jurors.
"Don't worry, we'll keep you imprisoned until you remember or manage to brute force it. We also don't care what you told your doctor..."
See how power works?
See how power works?
The anti-terrorism act used in this case allows detention of no more than 1 hour, or no more than 6 hours under certain conditions. Arrest involves other charges so what you described could happen, but not without turns.
Having withheld evidence is the crime, they will be able to prove you did that. Even if you were otherwise innocent.
How could they tell if you withheld anything or genuinely forgot? It's a stressful situation. I'm not sure if I'll remember even my mother's name in such situation.
> How could they tell if you withheld anything or genuinely forgot? It's a stressful situation. I'm not sure if I'll remember even my mother's name in such situation.
You are not giving them password so you are withholding it from them. Law doesn't have exemption for whatever excuse you are trying to use. So it's jail time for you. There is no way to prove you forgot it. And this law logic is "guilty until proven innocent".
What bothers me even worse is situation when you think you knew password but it didn't worked. Had similar situation with LastPass, I was entering one password and no matter what it failed to open vault. Tried different spellings nothing, only after a month of frantic thinking I entered correct one. Most likely I would be accused of lying to cops
You are not giving them password so you are withholding it from them. Law doesn't have exemption for whatever excuse you are trying to use. So it's jail time for you. There is no way to prove you forgot it. And this law logic is "guilty until proven innocent".
What bothers me even worse is situation when you think you knew password but it didn't worked. Had similar situation with LastPass, I was entering one password and no matter what it failed to open vault. Tried different spellings nothing, only after a month of frantic thinking I entered correct one. Most likely I would be accused of lying to cops
[deleted]
How does this work? If they have to provide writing what's the point? Surely the individual could just wipe their device in that time?
If they confiscate the device during the initial detention then them issuing written notice that they need the password doesn't really change much since they're going to be getting access to your device whether you like it or not.
If they confiscate the device during the initial detention then them issuing written notice that they need the password doesn't really change much since they're going to be getting access to your device whether you like it or not.
He was detained in a room. I am pretty sure there was a printer nearby and they could give him those documents in writing.
re-reading the act, it actually says "must be given in writing or (if not in writing) must be given in a manner that produces a record of its having been given;"
So being given verbally with a tape recorder or note-taker recording the interaction is actually sufficient. Sounds like the police had exactly that.
So being given verbally with a tape recorder or note-taker recording the interaction is actually sufficient. Sounds like the police had exactly that.
>Surely the individual could just wipe their device in that time?
And then they charge them with obstruction of justice and destruction of potential evidence.
And then they charge them with obstruction of justice and destruction of potential evidence.
Yes and if you force them to prosecute, only then can you take it to an appeals court to strike down an unconstitutional law
The system sucks but this is how it works
The system sucks but this is how it works
Far more likely that you'd just bankrupt your family, lose your home and your job, only to have the courts uphold that same unconstitutional law. I'd respect the hell of anyone who tried and sacrificed everything they had to force the courts to confirm that the constitution is being ignored to satisfy an oppressive and power hungry government, but I sure as hell wouldn't recommend it or be able/willing to myself.
> you can be sentenced to a maximum of 2 years imprisonment
Yeah, but that involves a charge, and you get a lawyer.
I would have refused to answer anything without first consulting a lawyer; I won't take legal advice from the investigating policeman. "You say I have to answer? Fine, I'll answer if my lawyer confirms that." What can go wrong? The worst that can happen is that they charge you (with something?) for refusing to answer. Voila: legal advice.
I guess Craig's devices didn't have much of interest on them; he travels a lot, and has been mauled by the law more than once. So he can give up the passwords with confidence. And presumably they already knew what meetings he'd attended, with whom.
Yeah, but that involves a charge, and you get a lawyer.
I would have refused to answer anything without first consulting a lawyer; I won't take legal advice from the investigating policeman. "You say I have to answer? Fine, I'll answer if my lawyer confirms that." What can go wrong? The worst that can happen is that they charge you (with something?) for refusing to answer. Voila: legal advice.
I guess Craig's devices didn't have much of interest on them; he travels a lot, and has been mauled by the law more than once. So he can give up the passwords with confidence. And presumably they already knew what meetings he'd attended, with whom.
Yeah but, you refuse to give the information, so that's a crime; even with a lawyer you're then liable for a maximum of two years imprisonment.
That's the fucker about these laws; in a lot of constitutions (note that the UK does not have a constitution so I'm not sure how it works over there), you have the right to not provide evidence that may lead to your conviction. But rules like this go counter to those.
That's the fucker about these laws; in a lot of constitutions (note that the UK does not have a constitution so I'm not sure how it works over there), you have the right to not provide evidence that may lead to your conviction. But rules like this go counter to those.
Maximum of two years, in practice means you'll be out in a few months on probation. You'll keep most of your life and get a story to tell for the rest of it.
Worth calling their bluff, I reckon.
Worth calling their bluff, I reckon.
Months in prison is worth what now?
You're gonna leave your family, lose your job, have to explain to everybody you know that you were in jail for a while. For a good story?
You're gonna leave your family, lose your job, have to explain to everybody you know that you were in jail for a while. For a good story?
For most people in the US, being in jail, even if only for a couple months would mean losing their home too.
Possible months, for a new experience, and perhaps the consequences aren't so catastrophic. Lots of people go to jail and live long and happy lives afterwards.
Don't live in fear, that is not worth it.
Don't live in fear, that is not worth it.
You do understand that in many places (and certainly in the U.S.) a criminal conviction, even a minor one, can mean the crushing destruction of your professional career, job prospects and all sorts of future opportunities. It's a shit show of a discriminatory system that keeps this alive but it's what it is and very real.
For millions of people it would be a disaster that you don't just smile your way out of with some optimism and a laughingly good story. It's not just about "don't live in fear", Instead it's often a harshly practical matter of "oh shit, i'm going to jail for months, the bank will foreclose on my home, my job will fire me and my kids are fucked".... You might be okay with that, but it's no fucking joke for many, no matter how lightly they try to take the burden.
For millions of people it would be a disaster that you don't just smile your way out of with some optimism and a laughingly good story. It's not just about "don't live in fear", Instead it's often a harshly practical matter of "oh shit, i'm going to jail for months, the bank will foreclose on my home, my job will fire me and my kids are fucked".... You might be okay with that, but it's no fucking joke for many, no matter how lightly they try to take the burden.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you
Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?
Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?
This is universal lmao
And it's not just a current events thing
And it's not just a current events thing
> This is universal lmao
It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country.
One example, Sweden:
> 23 kap. 12 § rättegångsbalken (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1)
> Under förhör må ej i syfte att framkalla bekännelse eller uttalande i viss riktning användas medvetet oriktiga uppgifter, löften eller förespeglingar om särskilda förmåner, hot, tvång, uttröttning eller andra otillbörliga åtgärder [...]
Meaning, the one who is doing the interrogation is not allowed to "use deliberate misrepresentation, promises or promises of special benefits, threats, coercion, hardship or other improper measures.", basically not allowed to lie.
How it works usually works out in practice, is most likely different though. I've only been to one interrogation with Swedish police and they definitely lied about a bunch of stuff.
I'm sure there are other countries where the police isn't allowed to lie either.
It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country.
One example, Sweden:
> 23 kap. 12 § rättegångsbalken (https://lagen.nu/1942:740#K23P12S1)
> Under förhör må ej i syfte att framkalla bekännelse eller uttalande i viss riktning användas medvetet oriktiga uppgifter, löften eller förespeglingar om särskilda förmåner, hot, tvång, uttröttning eller andra otillbörliga åtgärder [...]
Meaning, the one who is doing the interrogation is not allowed to "use deliberate misrepresentation, promises or promises of special benefits, threats, coercion, hardship or other improper measures.", basically not allowed to lie.
How it works usually works out in practice, is most likely different though. I've only been to one interrogation with Swedish police and they definitely lied about a bunch of stuff.
I'm sure there are other countries where the police isn't allowed to lie either.
We are talking past each other.
There are two truths:
1. It is forbidden by law in many places (including the US).
2. They will get away with it regardless, in nearly every case. So often that practically speaking it's allowed
There are two truths:
1. It is forbidden by law in many places (including the US).
2. They will get away with it regardless, in nearly every case. So often that practically speaking it's allowed
Was it so hard just to lead with this?
Indeed. That was a much better response – and there was no call for laughing their ass off at a genuine question. They may have been laughing at the concept of a police force that doesn’t lie to citizens but it still came across as a rude response.
> We are talking past each other.
Well, be more clear and maybe we could avoid it :) In some US states, the police are legally allowed to lie, it's not forbidden for them to do so. In some other states and outside countries, they are allowed, in others, they're not.
Well, be more clear and maybe we could avoid it :) In some US states, the police are legally allowed to lie, it's not forbidden for them to do so. In some other states and outside countries, they are allowed, in others, they're not.
Not a Swede, but I wouldn't be surprised if the police is allowed to lie about for example which evidence they have.
The sentence you refer to seems to refer to 'pressurization'.
The sentence you refer to seems to refer to 'pressurization'.
>It is not universal. Not sure why you'd claim so unless you've looked up the laws for every country.
Probably because humans are not formal proof automata. When the parent said universal they meant "it is a thing across the world and across periods", and not "no X exists, where X is a country, and in X it's against the law".
Probably because humans are not formal proof automata. When the parent said universal they meant "it is a thing across the world and across periods", and not "no X exists, where X is a country, and in X it's against the law".
Ah, maybe it's my non-native English-ness that shines through, but I've always understood "universal" as something implies like it is everyone, not "just in some places".
So I could accurately say "English language is universal" even though there are countries where people generally don't speak English at all?
So I could accurately say "English language is universal" even though there are countries where people generally don't speak English at all?
>So I could accurately say "English language is universal" even though there are countries where people generally don't speak English at all?
In math or formal logic, no. In casual english all the time.
Here is an example from the dictionary for universal, that's not actually formally universal:
(a) One reason for the author's success is that her novels have a universal appeal.
Obviously not everyone, even if they do read a lot of novels, would like the author's novels, or even the genre they are in. Some will also just hate them.
Or how about:
(b) Love and relationships will always be a topic of universal interest.
(c) Music is often thought of as a universal language.
There are of course absolutely people who don't care for "love and relationships" or are totally indifferent to music.
Or here's an example from a blog:
https://www.thelanguagegallery.com/blog/why-has-english-beco...
"According to statistics shared by Babbel Magazine, the English language is spoken by 20% of the world’s population. Apart from being one of the most popular languages in the world, English is also the most commonly studied foreign language. Before we learn how it became a universal language"
Note how they call it "universal" even though just spoken by 20% of the people at best.
In general universal in such contexts means "quite common or prevalent, within different population groups (even if the groups belong to a specific type)", e.g.:
"the Latin language (qua Medieval Latin) was in effect a universal language of literati in the Middle Ages"
"In a more practical fashion, trade languages, such as ancient Koine Greek, may be seen as a kind of real universal language, that was used for commerce" (note that the Koine "universal" language was just spoken in the regions around the Mediterranean, North Africa, and Middle East).
(both examples from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language )
In math or formal logic, no. In casual english all the time.
Here is an example from the dictionary for universal, that's not actually formally universal:
(a) One reason for the author's success is that her novels have a universal appeal.
Obviously not everyone, even if they do read a lot of novels, would like the author's novels, or even the genre they are in. Some will also just hate them.
Or how about:
(b) Love and relationships will always be a topic of universal interest.
(c) Music is often thought of as a universal language.
There are of course absolutely people who don't care for "love and relationships" or are totally indifferent to music.
Or here's an example from a blog:
https://www.thelanguagegallery.com/blog/why-has-english-beco...
"According to statistics shared by Babbel Magazine, the English language is spoken by 20% of the world’s population. Apart from being one of the most popular languages in the world, English is also the most commonly studied foreign language. Before we learn how it became a universal language"
Note how they call it "universal" even though just spoken by 20% of the people at best.
In general universal in such contexts means "quite common or prevalent, within different population groups (even if the groups belong to a specific type)", e.g.:
"the Latin language (qua Medieval Latin) was in effect a universal language of literati in the Middle Ages"
"In a more practical fashion, trade languages, such as ancient Koine Greek, may be seen as a kind of real universal language, that was used for commerce" (note that the Koine "universal" language was just spoken in the regions around the Mediterranean, North Africa, and Middle East).
(both examples from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_language )
This would be an example of "absolutes." Using an absolute will usually make your sentence incorrect; "never" and "always" are rarely true. When writing something formal--essays, news, research papers--you should try not to use absolutes.
While absolutes shouldn't be used for formal writings, English speakers will very often use them in casual settings. I itallicized some spots where I could have used absolutes, and if you replace those words with "never" or "always", I think you'll understand what I'm saying better.
> "English language is universal"
This is an absolute or hypberbole, but most native speakers will understand what the author meant by that.
While absolutes shouldn't be used for formal writings, English speakers will very often use them in casual settings. I itallicized some spots where I could have used absolutes, and if you replace those words with "never" or "always", I think you'll understand what I'm saying better.
> "English language is universal"
This is an absolute or hypberbole, but most native speakers will understand what the author meant by that.
Hahah lmao he asked a reasonable question lol!
If you don’t know, just don’t answer.
If you don’t know, just don’t answer.
I believe in The Netherlands it is the same. I always assumed it to be universal.
Are you sure? I don’t believe that this is the case, esp for super heavy stuff like telling someone they don't have a right to a lawyer when actually they do.
Police is definitely bound to the law, like the right you are referring to.
This doesn't mean everything has to be true : an example from an earlier comment of mine is lying about which evidence they actually have.
edit: https://nieuws.nl/algemeen/20180203/de-politie-in-nederland-...
This doesn't mean everything has to be true : an example from an earlier comment of mine is lying about which evidence they actually have.
edit: https://nieuws.nl/algemeen/20180203/de-politie-in-nederland-...
More than that. In the Netherlands the prosecutors are allowed to lie under oath in court. You might then ask "Well what value has the court then?
Good question.
The thing is, this doesn't just work against suspects. This works when prosecutors lie in court in order to protect the informants that they have been using in an illegal manner to commit crimes against non-criminals.
And every single person in all of the parts of government will just roll over to allow the injustice to continue. Except for Peter Omzigt...
Good question.
The thing is, this doesn't just work against suspects. This works when prosecutors lie in court in order to protect the informants that they have been using in an illegal manner to commit crimes against non-criminals.
And every single person in all of the parts of government will just roll over to allow the injustice to continue. Except for Peter Omzigt...
[deleted]
> In the Netherlands the prosecutors are allowed to lie under oath in court.
Do you have a source for that? I live in The Netherlands, and I have never heard of this.
Do you have a source for that? I live in The Netherlands, and I have never heard of this.
I think it’s universal. It started in the United States though. Look at this case: Frazier v. Cupp (1969). That is what started it all. Many other nations picked up on it. This case was argued before the Supreme Court.
In hindsight we can see that police are very dishonest, lying, thugs. They have no real ethics. FBI was caught sleeping with female “suspects”’for intelligence. Think about that. Fucking for intelligence. They were exploiting women.
NSA has intelligence analysts that were using and still are using a program called “section 702” of the intelligence act to spy on women they want to have sex with, ex girlfriends, others. Intimate details of their lives. It was written up in Wired. It looks to be renewed.
So you have power hungry cops, FBI, NSA Analysts who are ugly, fat and corrupt. Can’t get laid, ethical issues. Who the Supreme Court says can lie straight to your face. But they can arrest you if they think you are lying? Stop trying to help them. Let them drown. They are the real threat. The real terrorists. If we did this we be in jail.
In hindsight we can see that police are very dishonest, lying, thugs. They have no real ethics. FBI was caught sleeping with female “suspects”’for intelligence. Think about that. Fucking for intelligence. They were exploiting women.
NSA has intelligence analysts that were using and still are using a program called “section 702” of the intelligence act to spy on women they want to have sex with, ex girlfriends, others. Intimate details of their lives. It was written up in Wired. It looks to be renewed.
So you have power hungry cops, FBI, NSA Analysts who are ugly, fat and corrupt. Can’t get laid, ethical issues. Who the Supreme Court says can lie straight to your face. But they can arrest you if they think you are lying? Stop trying to help them. Let them drown. They are the real threat. The real terrorists. If we did this we be in jail.
> They have no real ethics. FBI was caught sleeping with female “suspects”’for intelligence. Think about that. Fucking for intelligence. They were exploiting women
I assume you're talking about Mark Kennedy[1], but it's even worse! He was dating one of the people of interest for over a year while undercover, and I believe he was married at the time too
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/epxbpj/kate-wilson-mark-kenn...
I assume you're talking about Mark Kennedy[1], but it's even worse! He was dating one of the people of interest for over a year while undercover, and I believe he was married at the time too
[1] https://www.vice.com/en/article/epxbpj/kate-wilson-mark-kenn...
Law enforcement isn't a big cuddly teddy bear that's there to protect and serve. It can be, but it can also not be ...
You don't accidentally end up in a situation where cops tell you that you don't have the right to a lawyer. The west still isn't Iran.
You don't accidentally end up in a situation where cops tell you that you don't have the right to a lawyer. The west still isn't Iran.
You need to shove the boot a bit further down your throat. Words are still escaping!
> > Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you
> Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?
In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.
Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?
> Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?
In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.
Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?
> > > Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you
> > Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?
> In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.
> Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?
And cops lie because no one is willing to prosecute them.
> > Is this pretty universal or is it an American thing?
> In court: You: They lied to me about my right to a lawyer Cop: No we didn't, also he admitted during this talk to being on the site of theft and taking of someone else property.
> Now who will Jury or Judge believe, cop or a thief?
And cops lie because no one is willing to prosecute them.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Conducting an examination 34. The examining officer must explain their role to the person and that Schedule 7 is a part of counter-terrorism policing at the port/UK border, but that this does not mean that they are suspected of being involved in terrorism. The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. If requested, the examining officer must provide sufficient information, such as an identification number and location, to the person or his or her representative to enable the officer to be identified in the event of any query or complaint.
35. The examining officer will explain how the examination will be conducted and must offer a Schedule 7 Public Information Leaflet. The Public Information Leaflet is available in multiple languages, and outlines the purpose and provisions of Schedule 7, duties under Schedule 7, key points of the code of practice, including an individual’s rights, and relevant contact details (including those needed to provide feedback or make a complaint).
39. Where an officer decides it is necessary to examine a person for longer than an hour, then questioning under paragraph 2 and 3 of Schedule 7 may only continue beyond the hour point if the person has been detained under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7. Any period of examination, including detention, must not exceed six hours from the commencement of the examination.
Conducting an examination 34. The examining officer must explain their role to the person and that Schedule 7 is a part of counter-terrorism policing at the port/UK border, but that this does not mean that they are suspected of being involved in terrorism. The purpose of the examination is to determine whether the person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. If requested, the examining officer must provide sufficient information, such as an identification number and location, to the person or his or her representative to enable the officer to be identified in the event of any query or complaint.
35. The examining officer will explain how the examination will be conducted and must offer a Schedule 7 Public Information Leaflet. The Public Information Leaflet is available in multiple languages, and outlines the purpose and provisions of Schedule 7, duties under Schedule 7, key points of the code of practice, including an individual’s rights, and relevant contact details (including those needed to provide feedback or make a complaint).
39. Where an officer decides it is necessary to examine a person for longer than an hour, then questioning under paragraph 2 and 3 of Schedule 7 may only continue beyond the hour point if the person has been detained under paragraph 6 of Schedule 7. Any period of examination, including detention, must not exceed six hours from the commencement of the examination.
Last sentence of section 39 makes it look like all you have to do is remain silent for 6 hours to be released. I'm not a lawyer.
Nor would you be allowed a lawyer
Refusing to answer the questions is a crime. Once you've committed a crime, the examination part can give way to the "You're under arrest" part.
> give way to the "You're under arrest" part.
At least then you get a lawyer, and don't have to say anything, and don't have to give any passwords
At least then you get a lawyer, and don't have to say anything, and don't have to give any passwords
Sure, but you're also on video committing the crime in front of police officers. The lawyer isn't going to help you get out of the charge for not answering questions, and if they still want your passwords the judge will absolutely just order you to give them up and keep stacking prison sentences until you comply.
>don't have to give any passwords.
That's an offence.
That's an offence.
Then once you’re arrested you can have a lawyer.
>Law enforcement is basically allowed to lie to you
Is that actually true in the UK though? I was once "detained" in far less intimidating circumstances. I had a meeting in Bradford(UK) at 9am at some business client's place and I arrived by car half an hour early so I parked my car in an empty parking lot overlooking one of the main streets and I was sitting there waiting. Then a policewoman appears out of nowhere and asks me what am I doing there etc. I answered, and next she's asking if I have any id. When I asked what for, she used that phrase that "I was detained (but I forgot the reason why, something about assessing what I'm doing there)".Fine,I gave her my drivers license. She wrote the details down and then filled and gave me a piece of paper with various things along the lines of "you were detained today for the following reason..., you can complain here if you want etc.". She said thank you and walked away.
Later I learned some important person was visiting Bradford and they were doing security in advance. I wonder if they had a right to stop people like that prior to the" terrorist act".
Is that actually true in the UK though? I was once "detained" in far less intimidating circumstances. I had a meeting in Bradford(UK) at 9am at some business client's place and I arrived by car half an hour early so I parked my car in an empty parking lot overlooking one of the main streets and I was sitting there waiting. Then a policewoman appears out of nowhere and asks me what am I doing there etc. I answered, and next she's asking if I have any id. When I asked what for, she used that phrase that "I was detained (but I forgot the reason why, something about assessing what I'm doing there)".Fine,I gave her my drivers license. She wrote the details down and then filled and gave me a piece of paper with various things along the lines of "you were detained today for the following reason..., you can complain here if you want etc.". She said thank you and walked away.
Later I learned some important person was visiting Bradford and they were doing security in advance. I wonder if they had a right to stop people like that prior to the" terrorist act".
Yeah, it seems to be a very over-reaching law, as far as I can gather. From https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> Who can be examined?
> The examining officer may only stop and question a person for the purpose of allowing a determination of whether that person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of “terrorism” as defined in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000
I guess that makes sense... But then in the end of the same paragraph:
> An examining officer may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is or has been concerned in terrorism.
So, essentially anyone can be examined for any reason (or no reason at all)?
> Who can be examined?
> The examining officer may only stop and question a person for the purpose of allowing a determination of whether that person appears to be someone who is or who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of “terrorism” as defined in section 1 of the Terrorism Act 2000
I guess that makes sense... But then in the end of the same paragraph:
> An examining officer may stop and question a person whether or not there are grounds for suspecting that the person is or has been concerned in terrorism.
So, essentially anyone can be examined for any reason (or no reason at all)?
They may stop and question anybody. But they cannot stop and question people for the purpose of, for example, recovering stolen goods.
Basically, the officer must currently be working on a terrorism case to be able to use these powers.
Basically, the officer must currently be working on a terrorism case to be able to use these powers.
Stolen goods can't be used for terrorism?
I mean how am I supposed to know if you don't intend to use that banana you didn't pay for as part of a phalic terrorism display without getting access to your text messages?
I mean how am I supposed to know if you don't intend to use that banana you didn't pay for as part of a phalic terrorism display without getting access to your text messages?
You’re deliberately ignoring an honest explanation.
But does the answer actually say what the law states, or does the law state what the (ignoring) response is describing. What was intended by a law and what the law actually says can vary wildly; and calling that out, when the law gives far greater power than it was intended to, is both reasonable and important.
The law says you just have to say the magic words, then you get full power. If you slip up and admit you were doing it for another reason, you might get a slap on the wrist.
You are correct. But in historical practice, we see that laws get misused. Powers, however legitimate, get abused. Restrictions gets stretched, and then stretched to the breaking point, and then obliterated.
So, while they deliberately ignored an honest explanation, they also had a legitimate point.
So, while they deliberately ignored an honest explanation, they also had a legitimate point.
No, they're pointing out the ways that explanation is dishonest. You cannot look at the political landscape and tell anyone in good conscience that officials will use an honest interpretation of the law.
And again, that's not at all a theoretical exercise here.
No one sincerely thinks Craig Murray might be a terrorist. Those who would say such a thing are in fact not sincere. They just say it as a political loyalty statement, or to psych themselves up to abuse him/gloat in his abuse.
No one sincerely thinks Craig Murray might be a terrorist. Those who would say such a thing are in fact not sincere. They just say it as a political loyalty statement, or to psych themselves up to abuse him/gloat in his abuse.
With every law that is as... vague.. as this, I always ask myself one question: "If the Nazis would rise to power, how badly could they abuse it by doing only slight changes to how it's interpreted?"
Here the answer is: Pretty bad
Your laws don't have to survive a well meaning democratic government. They have to survive one that is cunning, evil and tries to actively abolish the Rule of Law and democracy.
This is a bad law.
Here the answer is: Pretty bad
Your laws don't have to survive a well meaning democratic government. They have to survive one that is cunning, evil and tries to actively abolish the Rule of Law and democracy.
This is a bad law.
That this level of wisdom is buried layers deep in an HN post is a bit of a shame.
Spot on.
Spot on.
An evil government is not going to obey the laws anyway, so might as well make the well meaning government more effective to prevent the other one.
Historically there are not many instances of this happening tho, unless we are speaking of truly absolute majorities that follow already dictatoric governments. Evil governments have it very easy if the laws they encounter when they get into office are ones that are practical for evil governments.
Even the actual Nazis had to fake a reason for why they need to abolish democracy ("Reichstagsbrand"). The reason why they could do that were laws. Laws that might have looked okay in democratic times.
When you have a healthy, strong democracy your division of powers and opposition should be able to hold off a evil government for enough time voters can vote them out again. That is a core idea of democracy and the reason why there are the different branches.
Now your governments can create/modify/remove laws in a way that weakens that division between the branches and makes it easier for evil government to remove their opposition, influence the justice system and command the military to break their oaths etc.
Our task during non-evil governments is to avoid accidentally weakening those defenses.
Even the actual Nazis had to fake a reason for why they need to abolish democracy ("Reichstagsbrand"). The reason why they could do that were laws. Laws that might have looked okay in democratic times.
When you have a healthy, strong democracy your division of powers and opposition should be able to hold off a evil government for enough time voters can vote them out again. That is a core idea of democracy and the reason why there are the different branches.
Now your governments can create/modify/remove laws in a way that weakens that division between the branches and makes it easier for evil government to remove their opposition, influence the justice system and command the military to break their oaths etc.
Our task during non-evil governments is to avoid accidentally weakening those defenses.
Your perspective of history seems limited to the current first world countries.
Governments in Asia, Africa, and South America routinely ignore laws for petty reasons.
Governments in Asia, Africa, and South America routinely ignore laws for petty reasons.
Yeah, that means you didn't have the proper seperation of powers to begin with, which was kinda the point of my argument.
If you're down that road and eroded that seperation, getting that thing back into the bottle is really hard without revolutions or massive public uproar. If you never had that seperation to begin with, even worse.
TL;DR: evil governments can ignore laws if the justice system is not independent. Hence the inportance of keeping it independent.
If you're down that road and eroded that seperation, getting that thing back into the bottle is really hard without revolutions or massive public uproar. If you never had that seperation to begin with, even worse.
TL;DR: evil governments can ignore laws if the justice system is not independent. Hence the inportance of keeping it independent.
Step one; get overreaching, extreme powers passed into law because they'll only be used to fight "terrorism".
Step two; redefine everything as terrorism.
Step two; redefine everything as terrorism.
We're already at step two, since no one sincerely thinks Craig Murray is a terrorist.
He is not likely taken part in terrorist activities personally, but he admitted to supporting terrorists, so it's not out of the realm of plausible he also provided material support and aid to them. I'm not saying it necessarily happened, but it's not unbelievable.
In the post admitted to supporting Palestinians, and pro-Palestine causes. Is there more to this, or are you painting all Palestinians as terrorists?
He supports Hamas and Hezbollah: <https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...>.
If only all fascists in sheepskins would get this treatment to start with
Stop with this cheap "all Palestinians" baiting. He explicitly and directly endorsed Hamas and Hezbollah on his social media. And directly said he endorses any action by them right after Hamas murdered 1400 people, so there's no doubt whether or not he makes any distinctions. Maybe you should do at least minimal research before regurgitating formulas the media stuffed your head with.
Show us some proof. Tall claims require tall evidence.
For the record, Israel is killing medics and press members, and have done so for their entire existence. Their status as a state, and the US's backing of them at any cost including threats of violence and terrorist accusations if we don't just 'fall in line'.
Maybe you should realize the character of who you're supporting. Israel is not a legitimate country and the US has no right instigating more bullshit in that region.
There are no correct sides in this conflict except with innocent civilians which nobody seems to genuinely care about.
Accuse me of whatever you want, the alternative is being okay with one side raping and pillaging, which imo is worse.
For the record, Israel is killing medics and press members, and have done so for their entire existence. Their status as a state, and the US's backing of them at any cost including threats of violence and terrorist accusations if we don't just 'fall in line'.
Maybe you should realize the character of who you're supporting. Israel is not a legitimate country and the US has no right instigating more bullshit in that region.
There are no correct sides in this conflict except with innocent civilians which nobody seems to genuinely care about.
Accuse me of whatever you want, the alternative is being okay with one side raping and pillaging, which imo is worse.
I'm not going to debate your ignorance and your hate. The proof that Murray supports terrorism is in his own tweets, which are quoted many times here. You are free to remain blind to it, as you are obviously blind to many other things, in service of your hate, which makes you support murderers and rapists. That still doesn't change the facts.
Neither Hamas or Israel are correct in their aggression. I urge you to read about the formation of Israel and ask yourself what value colonialism has in the modern age.
Strange that favoring peaceful civilians, of any ethnicity btw, means hatred. People are so binary in their thought that they assume only two sides exist.
Strange that favoring peaceful civilians, of any ethnicity btw, means hatred. People are so binary in their thought that they assume only two sides exist.
And how is the detained going to ascertain that the officer really is working on a terrorism case and not conducting their own fishing expedition? Given that no lawyer may be present, I'm also sure that the target of the investigation is not to be disclosed to the victim.
I would just sit there and repeat "I want a lawyer" until they actually arrest me for something.
At CPH:DOX this year they showed the documentary "Phantom Parrot" about human rights activist Muhammad Rabbani that was prosecuted for refusing to give up his passwords at a border crossing into the UK.
The surveillance programme, codenamed Phantom Parrot, is designed to copy the personal data of individuals at airports and border crossings.
There's a trailer for it here: https://youtu.be/8QzZteMWbww
The surveillance programme, codenamed Phantom Parrot, is designed to copy the personal data of individuals at airports and border crossings.
There's a trailer for it here: https://youtu.be/8QzZteMWbww
>This is what I find so terrifying about the terrorism act. I cannot understand how this is legal
Simple: power balance determines what's legal and what's not.
Simple: power balance determines what's legal and what's not.
Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws.
I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy.
No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world".
Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly at any moment.
I don't think we can call them "laws", because are clearly against the most fundamental values of any democracy.
No country is free anymore. Not even the US, which enjoys bolstering itself as "the free world".
Any freedom you enjoy in a democratic state nowadays is merely circumstantial and can disappear instantly at any moment.
"You don't have rights, you have temporary privileges."
(George Carlin)
(George Carlin)
Basically agreeing with you, I want only to add that I don't believe it was freer earlier - just people less informed.
FISA and the patriot Act and NSLs did not increase the freedom did they?
They're not laws, they're the exemption of laws, just like outlaws - "a person declared as outside the protection of the law". Terrorist means you're not protected by the law, do not get rights, don't fall under the Geneva Convention as a prisoner of war, etc. It means you get to go to Guantanamo Bay and rot for two decades without charge or anything.
But it's fine because it's the most powerful country in the world that does it. If anyone objects, they get dropped. If it comes to a vote in e.g. the UN security councel, they use their veto power.
But it's fine because it's the most powerful country in the world that does it. If anyone objects, they get dropped. If it comes to a vote in e.g. the UN security councel, they use their veto power.
"Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.
Ok but I remember a few occasions where people have got off easy for being ignorant of the law.
I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent”
If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?
I don’t want to be partisan but the most striking example I remember was when Comey weighed in on Secretary Clinton’s email server saying “there was no criminal intent”
If you’re ignorant of the law, you cannot have a criminal intent, or am I missing something?
How can I possible know 2 milions regulations, restrictions and laws that we now have in state where I live? It's not humanly possible.
> "Ignorantia juris non excusat" is precedent for any democratic state. It's there for long time. And it could end your freedom any time if your are not encyclopedia of all current laws, regulations and restrictions of country where you live.
In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.
In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think. So ignorance is a shield if you have a shield.
> In USA if police doesn't know it breaks your rights it cannot be sued directly. Qualified immunity I think.
This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)
This is a misstatement of the rule. Qualified immunity applies if the alleged action would not have violated a "clearly established Constitutional right", which does not depend on the personal knowledge of the individual being sued. (It's also applies to all public employees/officers, not just police, though its application in the domain of policing has frequently been controversial.)
I agree with you in general, but regarding this specific phrase in this specific context:
> Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws.
Unless I misunderstand the legislative history, the law that was used here (Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000) dates from July 2000, so before 9/11.
Still part of the same trend as what happened after 9/11, of course, but we shouldn’t pretend 9/11 was the beginning of this, especially not in the UK.
> Governments took advantage of the extreme fear created after the 9/11 attacks to pass these absurd laws.
Unless I misunderstand the legislative history, the law that was used here (Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000) dates from July 2000, so before 9/11.
Still part of the same trend as what happened after 9/11, of course, but we shouldn’t pretend 9/11 was the beginning of this, especially not in the UK.
Yes they took legislation Joe Biden wrote and tweaked it a little which is why they came up with the patriot Act so quickly following the attacks.
Not everything in the world revolves around the USA. The UK had an ongoing terrorism problem in Northern Ireland, and had instituted plenty of draconian laws of its own pursuant to that, even before Biden became a Senator in 1972.
The terrorism history is not much more than a pretext though. The source of these draconian Laws are highly stratified societies, with inept elites for seeing troubled times and accidentally accelerating them.
> especially not in the UK.
For US readers who weren't taught this in history class, the UK suffered a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA from the 1970's til roughly 2001.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings...
For US readers who weren't taught this in history class, the UK suffered a number of terrorist attacks by the IRA from the 1970's til roughly 2001.
https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-security-bombings...
>No country is free anymore.
I was just thinking about this, imagining being indefinitely detained for terrorism because 4chan is in my browser history[0]. I'd take the fifth, and they would charge me with a crime, and so, the US Constitution is basically void.
But then I wondered: was it ever really not? Was there ever a time I could have relied on legal justice if I happen to be in an unsympathetic jurisdiction? Before there was an unconstitutional terrorism act, there would still probably have been DAs willing to look the other way on a police beating and willing to add bogus criminal charges because I'm uncooperative.
Has justice ever been reliable? Right now it seems like maybe it has always been a psychological blanket.
[0]hyperbolic obviously. Hopefully. Just a thought experiment, as that's the only/closest activity of mine that could be construed as terrorism.
I was just thinking about this, imagining being indefinitely detained for terrorism because 4chan is in my browser history[0]. I'd take the fifth, and they would charge me with a crime, and so, the US Constitution is basically void.
But then I wondered: was it ever really not? Was there ever a time I could have relied on legal justice if I happen to be in an unsympathetic jurisdiction? Before there was an unconstitutional terrorism act, there would still probably have been DAs willing to look the other way on a police beating and willing to add bogus criminal charges because I'm uncooperative.
Has justice ever been reliable? Right now it seems like maybe it has always been a psychological blanket.
[0]hyperbolic obviously. Hopefully. Just a thought experiment, as that's the only/closest activity of mine that could be construed as terrorism.
Why is 4chan so dangerous? Isnt it just an image board?
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 example of why it's 'dangerous', a recent meme I've seen a bunch tells the reader that if they are drafted (in a theoretical future US draft), the moral thing to do is to shoot officers as soon as you get a rifle.
As a more specific example of why it's 'dangerous', a recent meme I've seen a bunch tells the reader that if they are drafted (in a theoretical future US draft), the moral thing to do is to shoot officers as soon as you get a rifle.
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.
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.
>odds of falsely being charged with terrorism are incredibly low.
Right now, sure. I'm merely speculating about the future.
Right now, sure. I'm merely speculating about the future.
> 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
They might be referring to a couple decades ago when 4chan users were referred to as "domestic terrorists" in a hyperbolic fox news report
That was always the case. Otherwise we wouldn't be in this situation now.
Rights are arbitrary limits made up by people which can be changed or eliminated by people. Nothing more, nothing less.
Rights are arbitrary limits made up by people which can be changed or eliminated by people. Nothing more, nothing less.
[deleted]
He shall be happy that he lives in a democracy. /s
It's not. That's why the UK has had losses related with this acts in the European Court of Human Rights. See e.g. https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng?i=001-191276
The UK is the epitome of a surveillance society. It’s very creepy. Cctv everywhere, no right to silence or counsel because terrorism… it’s a surveillance state.
"I cannot understand how this is legal."
It's legal because Parliament passed the legislation. Anything Parliament passes is legal. It's the very definition of legal.
Those who don't like that need to get the relevant people elected and change the law.
It's not a difficult system. We all have a vote.
There is no legal god in the British system and we recognise no external one. It's all down to the British people and their representatives.
It's legal because Parliament passed the legislation. Anything Parliament passes is legal. It's the very definition of legal.
Those who don't like that need to get the relevant people elected and change the law.
It's not a difficult system. We all have a vote.
There is no legal god in the British system and we recognise no external one. It's all down to the British people and their representatives.
Two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner, very simple and fair system! In the end society was not able to come up with anything better than a twitter poll to decide their destiny.
We have to decide. It is the least bad system.
Far better we are all involved, even if just notionally, than have it handed down by self-appointed betters.
Far better we are all involved, even if just notionally, than have it handed down by self-appointed betters.
The least bad system in the worst constraints, where all people must be labelled by blood or soil of origin and moving around is a privilege. The best illusion of control engineered however
Except for the fact that the house of lords is a lifelong appointment and people have taken cash bribes for appointments. Which is the very definition of undemocratic
That doesn't mean it's not legal. It can be undemocratic but still legal.
The House of Lords has no capacity to stop legislation that the House of Commons is determined to pass. Only the capacity to delay it.
That's why an appointed chamber works. They have no mandate and no legitimacy to do anything other than suggest.
And which then stops the stalemate you get in other systems with multiple conflicting mandates.
That's why an appointed chamber works. They have no mandate and no legitimacy to do anything other than suggest.
And which then stops the stalemate you get in other systems with multiple conflicting mandates.
What if he remained silent?
Nothing necessarily. In a situation like this many people would feel ill. If you are ill an interview is not reasonable to answer questions. If you are ill you should see a doctor. If you felt really bad like you might be sick you would have to lie down!
Is there any 'legal' way to get around sharing a password if asked to?
I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else.
Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL
I'm thinking either a rotating password that you learn only when you need to access a device/file that is on a separate device that you store somewhere else.
Or we take a leaf out of nuclear launch keys and two people have part of the password- if any of this is remotely different- obligatory IANAL
They'll just imprison you until you unlock the device (or for up to 5 years, if you'd prefer to just wait it out)
Is that per password?
If you are involved in causes frowned upon by the government of the country you are about to enter, you may want to wipe your phone on the plane.
It's more difficult for three letter agencies if you fill the memory with random stuff and encrypt before wiping.
If you don't want your phone used in impersonation while out of your hands, adb shell can be used to take out IMEI, BT and WiFi.
Simpler to just swap mainboards - available on Alixxxx
It's more difficult for three letter agencies if you fill the memory with random stuff and encrypt before wiping.
If you don't want your phone used in impersonation while out of your hands, adb shell can be used to take out IMEI, BT and WiFi.
Simpler to just swap mainboards - available on Alixxxx
VeraCrypt has a plausible deniability feature.
May not be tight enough for the NSA but could work for some glorified traffic cops at the airport.
May not be tight enough for the NSA but could work for some glorified traffic cops at the airport.
To expand on that, the idea is that a password-protected encrypted volume may have, in its empty space, another password-protected volume, which is indistinguishable from random noise. You can't tell whether it exists or not. Inside that could be another one, and so on.
At least that's the theory, I haven't messed with it to see.
At least that's the theory, I haven't messed with it to see.
This is a legal problem, not a technical one. If you’re required to turn something over your choice is to do it or sit in jail (or worse if you get the full NYPD/Gitmo treatment).
If you’re really lucky, you can convince them that whatever they’re looking for doesn’t exist but consider how hard it is to prove a negative like that. In most cases, that devolves to the second outcome above, possibly with some destruction of evidence charge.
If you’re really lucky, you can convince them that whatever they’re looking for doesn’t exist but consider how hard it is to prove a negative like that. In most cases, that devolves to the second outcome above, possibly with some destruction of evidence charge.
This is a technical problem, not a legal one. Don't take your phone.
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.
UK law is such complete ass. There is no getting around just how stupidly bad the Parliamentary Supremacy doctrine is. Parliament passed it so it is constitutional. There aren't enough insults in the world for the people who would think any of this qualifies as a good idea.
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 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.
If you're a US citizen, they have to let you in – eventually. In the meantime you may be sitting in a room without access to your phone.
With customs everywhere, you're usually better off answering their questions without asking why they want to know. Coming back from a visit to family, they wanted to know my three sisters' ages among other irrelevant stuff.
With customs everywhere, you're usually better off answering their questions without asking why they want to know. Coming back from a visit to family, they wanted to know my three sisters' ages among other irrelevant stuff.
This is the importance of the state in keeping the populace in a perpetual state of fear with their propagandists in the media. It's what allows garbage legislation like this to proceed in the first place.
Every one in the uk is a Terrorist according to the Terrorism Act. We really do live in a police state here. This isn't anything new ither this has been going on for nearly 20 years now since they first implemented it with the promise they wouldn't use it to harrass protestors it was the first thing they did.
The voting public have no interest in freedom.
The voting public have no interest in freedom.
The voting public also doesn't have any way of doing anything against this in any meaningful or efficient way.
Last I checked UK wasn't a direct democracy.
Last I checked UK wasn't a direct democracy.
TBF it's not supposed to be a direct democracy.
You can start a campaign. They can bring about change, in the long run. If a think tank was campaigning for something you didn't like, I bet you'd be first to complain about it...
You can start a campaign. They can bring about change, in the long run. If a think tank was campaigning for something you didn't like, I bet you'd be first to complain about it...
Of course, for all of that you need money, and quite a lot of money, and where are you going to get it in such large amounts? Eh, I dunno, I am not a politician myself and lobbying and corporate donations probably have nothing to do with that.
From others who support your campaign.
Yeah, it does suck that money == power.
IMO representative democracy isn't a problem, but corporate lobbying is.
There are no nations which are direct democracies.
I'd love to donate money to him and help but I live in the UK and don't want to be accused of supporting terrorism or some other nonsense. It's an idiotic situation to be in as a society.
And keep voting the same way year after year.
This is not a problem of who is in power. All parties have an extremely authoritarian bend in this country.
I agree - I feel like voting for other parties will change the economic and social outcomes for this country, but overall the British society as a whole seems pretty content with a "strong" rule of the law where the authority is to be respected and anyone going against norms should be at minimum arrested. The recent changes that basically made protesting unlawful in this country are the best example - even though it would be chilling in many other places of the world, in UK the public seems to be either welcoming to these changes or is at least indifferent to them. Maybe we can blame the relentless campaigning by right wing media for making sure that the average British person thinks that few people sitting on the road and blocking traffic are #1 public enemy, but I don't know.....I feel like Britain always valued "order" above all else, so it's only natural that anyone braking said order has to be punished. Voting differently won't change that.
He has a bitcoin and ethereum address. Unfortunately no monero, but you can swap in and out of monero without KYC or login using one of the services listed on kycnot.me. Alternatively, there are zero-knowledge mixers on ethereum such as tornado cash (still legal in the UK to the best of my knowledge).
Well, if you support Hamas after they butchered civilians, yes you'r supporting terrorism.
>Well, if you support Hamas after they butchered civilians
Numerically speaking the IDF have killed a lot more civilians than Hamas. As have the US for that matter, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq.
Numerically speaking the IDF have killed a lot more civilians than Hamas. As have the US for that matter, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq.
And pointing out the dire straights of Palestinians is different from supporting Hamas. The same way critizing Israel as a nation not the same thing as being anti-semitic.
The whole Western media and political landscape somewhat fails to appreciate that small, but incredibly important difference lately. Heck, I am even getting Youtube propagan... I mean ads from the Israeli ministry of defence. But as the saying goes "One death is a tragedy, thousands are a statistic".
The whole Western media and political landscape somewhat fails to appreciate that small, but incredibly important difference lately. Heck, I am even getting Youtube propagan... I mean ads from the Israeli ministry of defence. But as the saying goes "One death is a tragedy, thousands are a statistic".
In this situation he tweeted something about supporting any of the actions that Hamas makes.
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
Any action obviously goes to far. The situation is already bad enough as it is, a ground assault cpuld easily turn very, very ugly. And blow up thie whole powder cake that is the middle east. I just hope cooler heads prevail, but given the rather fragile political landscape in Israel, well we will see.
Powder keg
Well, some lives matter more than the others. No one in the west cares about Palestinians. And the way people try to do blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine! Even Russia pretends that it isn't openly targeting civilians but again, Palestinian lives are basically worthless so it's just different :)
If even Palestinians (Hamas) do not care about Palestinians and are holding them hostages or using Palestinian children as human shields, why would anybody expect from the West to?
Well I guess if Hamas doesn't care, that justifies war crimes from Israel.
No it doesn't justify war crimes from Israel. I'm just pointing out your delusion expecting anybody to care when they don't even care about themselves. You have to love yourself first, in order to be loved.
What? What are you even talking about? I'm not saying anything about loving them, there's an insanely wide margin between loving them and not turning a blind eye on war crimes because it's your ally that is doing it. What the hell?
Dude, don't play semantics. Want to substitute the word love for care? Do it, the statement still holds.
[deleted]
> blatant war crime apologia is by saying that Israel wasn't targeting civilians specifically (as if they would admit it lol) so that's fine!
Umm, that's literally what distinguishes whether or not it is a war crime*?
Not saying you need to take israeli claims at face value - but if one side accuses the other side of a crime, and the other side says they didn't do it, generally the burden is on the first side to provide proof. Saying it doesn't matter whether or not they actually did it isn't the right response.
* technically its more complex than that. There are times where it could still be a war crime even if civilians weren't targeted specificly. What matters more is the balance between military benefit vs civilian damage.*
Umm, that's literally what distinguishes whether or not it is a war crime*?
Not saying you need to take israeli claims at face value - but if one side accuses the other side of a crime, and the other side says they didn't do it, generally the burden is on the first side to provide proof. Saying it doesn't matter whether or not they actually did it isn't the right response.
* technically its more complex than that. There are times where it could still be a war crime even if civilians weren't targeted specificly. What matters more is the balance between military benefit vs civilian damage.*
Yes, but cutting off water and supplies while explicitly declaring that they will turn the city to rubble... while at the same time claiming that the attacks are targeted and proportional is a thing that only a western ally could get away with.
Russia pays complete lip service to always trying to make it look like they don't attack civilians (they do) yet are unequivocally accused of war crimes (as they should be).
It got to a point where Israeli officials had no problem publically declaring thinly veiled threats of extermination like:
>On October 10th an Israeli official told a television station: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.” Daniel Hagari, an idf spokesperson, boasted that “hundreds of tons of bombs” had been dropped on Gaza. Then, he added: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”
Again, only a western ally could get away with this with such a massive support at all level from all western countries after such statements.
Russia pays complete lip service to always trying to make it look like they don't attack civilians (they do) yet are unequivocally accused of war crimes (as they should be).
It got to a point where Israeli officials had no problem publically declaring thinly veiled threats of extermination like:
>On October 10th an Israeli official told a television station: “Gaza will eventually turn into a city of tents. There will be no buildings.” Daniel Hagari, an idf spokesperson, boasted that “hundreds of tons of bombs” had been dropped on Gaza. Then, he added: “the emphasis is on damage and not on accuracy.”
Again, only a western ally could get away with this with such a massive support at all level from all western countries after such statements.
> Numerically speaking the IDF have killed a lot more civilians than Hamas. As have the US for that matter, literally hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Iraq.
I don't know why "numerically" matters. There is a big difference morally between someone accidentally killed while persuing a legal military target, and intentionally gunning down a rave or children at a day care.
I don't know why "numerically" matters. There is a big difference morally between someone accidentally killed while persuing a legal military target, and intentionally gunning down a rave or children at a day care.
Civilian infrastructure and housing are decidedly no legitimate milotary targets. Never have been, and this makes air power such a bad choice when fighting insurgencies, it is to indiscriminate.
Whether or not it is a legit legal military target depends on if it is being used for a military purposes and how "porportional" the military benefit of targeting it is relitive to the civilian damage targeting it would cause.
The idea that if someone converts a house into an ammunition store depot it can never be targeted ever under international law is just straight up wrong.
Of course how that translates to what is being done on the ground is very complex. Which is why numerically approaches are wrong - you have to put every incident in appropriate context to judge it
The idea that if someone converts a house into an ammunition store depot it can never be targeted ever under international law is just straight up wrong.
Of course how that translates to what is being done on the ground is very complex. Which is why numerically approaches are wrong - you have to put every incident in appropriate context to judge it
You make the point about fighting insurgencies and guerilla opponents being so damn hard very well, I think. Not the least beimg, that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent.
Regarding the house being an ammunition depot: Sure, legitimate target. Blowing up the whole highrise, debatable. Blowing up the neighbouring highrise, even more debatable. And airstrikes are nowhere precise enough for that kind of work.
Regarding the house being an ammunition depot: Sure, legitimate target. Blowing up the whole highrise, debatable. Blowing up the neighbouring highrise, even more debatable. And airstrikes are nowhere precise enough for that kind of work.
> that said insurgents do not really count as an armed opponent
Insurgents are people who are fighting their own government (with guns) so they are armed, but they're not fighting Hamas, they're fighting Israel, so they're not insurgents.
Many of them don't even wear military uniforms in combat, that makes them unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and don't have rights. They almost always attack civilians, so they're terrorists.
Insurgents are people who are fighting their own government (with guns) so they are armed, but they're not fighting Hamas, they're fighting Israel, so they're not insurgents.
Many of them don't even wear military uniforms in combat, that makes them unlawful combatants under the Geneva Conventions and don't have rights. They almost always attack civilians, so they're terrorists.
Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them. That makes fighting them a police action, one that has to follow basic human rights (detention, fair trials, the works). Unless you are fine being the baddy, in which case go full out Soviet Uniom in Afghanistan, USA in Vietnam or SS on the Eastern Front rear areas.
You know what that doesn't mean? That those people, and everyone in their vincinity, forfeit all, every and each right they ever had. Last time I checked, the IDF had pretty decent rules of engagement around that very question. On paper, and unfortunately rather loosly respected, but still.
You know what that doesn't mean? That those people, and everyone in their vincinity, forfeit all, every and each right they ever had. Last time I checked, the IDF had pretty decent rules of engagement around that very question. On paper, and unfortunately rather loosly respected, but still.
> Yeah, isurgents, partisans and whatever you wanna call them are not regular combatants. You what that means? That the rule of land warefare don't apply to them
??? I don't think that follows. What is your basis for this.
??? I don't think that follows. What is your basis for this.
(not my view) What OP means is you don't bring an airforce and a navy and an army to a gang fight, unless of course you're okay with destruction of urban areas.
A six month old baby that burns to death is in just as much pay when it is because it was doused in gasoline by a terrorist as because it was set on fire by an Israeli airstrike.
You may care about the finer legal minutia, but I doubt it matters very much to the death people and their relatives.
You may care about the finer legal minutia, but I doubt it matters very much to the death people and their relatives.
> There is a big difference morally between someone accidentally killed while persuing a legal military target, and intentionally gunning down a rave or children at a day care.
Not all of us agree with this. The idea of “legal military target” grows out of the idea of “just war”, which many of us reject outright.
Not all of us agree with this. The idea of “legal military target” grows out of the idea of “just war”, which many of us reject outright.
i would think it more grows out of the distinction between first degree murder and either self-defense or involuntary manslaughter we find in ordinary laws.
The numbers we have for IDF civilian deaths in Gaza come from the governmental authority in Gaza. That government authority happens to be Hamas.
- Hamas falsely attributes civilian deaths to Israel (as you can see from the "hospital strike")
- Hamas vastly inflates civilian casualty counts, somewhere between 2-5x as you can also see from the "hospital strike" which was immediately claimed by Hamas to have killed more than 500. US estimates have it between 100-300, and I think the photos of the damaged parking lot are extremely damning for Hamas's claims - yes, an explosion and fire in a crowded refugee camp could kill lots of people, but 500 is absurd.
- Hamas tells civilians in Gaza to ignore text messages from the IDF telling them to evacuate because their residence may be bombed.
- Hamas sets up road blocks to prevent civilians in Gaza from evacuating.
- Hamas sets up military installations and ammunition caches next to or in civilian installations, including kindergartens and mosques. (You can find videos of bombings resulting in massive secondary explosions as ammunition caches pop off.) They hide in refugee camps (https://thehill.com/policy/international/4260111-israel-hama...).
I think it's worth asking whether there is any way to wage a just war against a government like this, that is literally trying to maximize the number of its own civilians killed. And if not, what kinds of behavior does that incentivize?
- Hamas falsely attributes civilian deaths to Israel (as you can see from the "hospital strike")
- Hamas vastly inflates civilian casualty counts, somewhere between 2-5x as you can also see from the "hospital strike" which was immediately claimed by Hamas to have killed more than 500. US estimates have it between 100-300, and I think the photos of the damaged parking lot are extremely damning for Hamas's claims - yes, an explosion and fire in a crowded refugee camp could kill lots of people, but 500 is absurd.
- Hamas tells civilians in Gaza to ignore text messages from the IDF telling them to evacuate because their residence may be bombed.
- Hamas sets up road blocks to prevent civilians in Gaza from evacuating.
- Hamas sets up military installations and ammunition caches next to or in civilian installations, including kindergartens and mosques. (You can find videos of bombings resulting in massive secondary explosions as ammunition caches pop off.) They hide in refugee camps (https://thehill.com/policy/international/4260111-israel-hama...).
I think it's worth asking whether there is any way to wage a just war against a government like this, that is literally trying to maximize the number of its own civilians killed. And if not, what kinds of behavior does that incentivize?
Half of Gaza's population _wasn't even born_ yet when Hamas was "elected" so this point is kind of moot
I'm not saying that Gazan civilians deserve to suffer because they voted for Hamas. I am saying that Hamas tries to inflate the death toll for Gazan civilians (both by lying about that toll, and by taking actions with the express purpose of increasing that toll).
If you refuse to go to war with Hamas because of this fact, you incentivize that behavior.
I can't really think of a more just case for war than "the government of a neighbor just brutally, intentionally slaughtered civilians in a surprise attack in our country." It doesn't matter whether the neighboring country is a dictatorship or a democracy.
It very much sucks for the people of Palestine that Hamas chose to start a war with Israel and is using tactics that purposefully result in the death of Palestinians. I hope that they stop putting rocket launchers in and next to schools. I hope that they start allowing people to evacuate. I hope that they stop lying to their people about "psychological warfare" in an effort to get more of them killed. I wish that neighboring countries would allow Palestinians to escape the carnage, and adopt strategies that actually support the Palestinian people rather than the Palestinian cause.
But the IDF and Israel do not control that. And I'm honestly not sure what people expect from them. If you can't fight an enemy that hides behind civilians, then hiding behind civilians is an obvious winning strategy. And personally, I don't want to live in a world where the government most willing to sacrifice their own people automatically wins any conflict.
If you refuse to go to war with Hamas because of this fact, you incentivize that behavior.
I can't really think of a more just case for war than "the government of a neighbor just brutally, intentionally slaughtered civilians in a surprise attack in our country." It doesn't matter whether the neighboring country is a dictatorship or a democracy.
It very much sucks for the people of Palestine that Hamas chose to start a war with Israel and is using tactics that purposefully result in the death of Palestinians. I hope that they stop putting rocket launchers in and next to schools. I hope that they start allowing people to evacuate. I hope that they stop lying to their people about "psychological warfare" in an effort to get more of them killed. I wish that neighboring countries would allow Palestinians to escape the carnage, and adopt strategies that actually support the Palestinian people rather than the Palestinian cause.
But the IDF and Israel do not control that. And I'm honestly not sure what people expect from them. If you can't fight an enemy that hides behind civilians, then hiding behind civilians is an obvious winning strategy. And personally, I don't want to live in a world where the government most willing to sacrifice their own people automatically wins any conflict.
They could just give back all the stolen land and homes and stop oppressing the Palestinians. If there weren't so many people living in such a tiny strip of land, the number of Palestinian children who become collateral damage would be greatly reduced, and people would be a lot less likely to join a terrorist organization if they can lead normal lives and don't have an oppressor throwing bombs on their friends and family.
Hmm. Even in reasonably functional democracies people vastly overestimate the ability of franchisees to affect any kind of meaningful change.
Maybe if nations and groups of people would just stop trying to destroy Israel as a state and kill jewish people out of pure hatred, we wouldn't be in this situation.
First of i doubt he's done that.
Second, the Israeli military has killed much, much more people, including thousands of civilians, kids and mothers over a half a century.
There are countless of videos and reports of rich settlers, harassing, stealing property and straight up killing regular palestinian farmers and families just living in their houses.
And third. Israel has actively supported Hamas to destroy moderate opposition like the PLO - the good old divide and conquer strategy.
So unless you also want to detain supporters of Israel this doesn't really make sense.
And no, you shouldn't detain them either like this.
Second, the Israeli military has killed much, much more people, including thousands of civilians, kids and mothers over a half a century.
There are countless of videos and reports of rich settlers, harassing, stealing property and straight up killing regular palestinian farmers and families just living in their houses.
And third. Israel has actively supported Hamas to destroy moderate opposition like the PLO - the good old divide and conquer strategy.
So unless you also want to detain supporters of Israel this doesn't really make sense.
And no, you shouldn't detain them either like this.
hef19898(2)
> First of i doubt he's done that.
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...
he's done exactly that. and he's done this as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/11/former-ambas...
https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...
he's done exactly that. and he's done this as well: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/may/11/former-ambas...
This is not support of Hamas though, it is an acknowledgement that there will understandable reactions to the ongoing carpet bombings and warcrimes done by Israel right now. I.e self defence from whatever group holds power there right now.
you wrote:
> This is not support of Hamas though, it is an acknowledgement that there will understandable reactions
that guy wrote:
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
this isn't "acknowledgement", this is support for the terrorists.
> This is not support of Hamas though, it is an acknowledgement that there will understandable reactions
that guy wrote:
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
this isn't "acknowledgement", this is support for the terrorists.
Has the author done that? Hamas may be the ruling party, but there aren’t elections, so the people don’t have a choice. It’s further confused by the fact that Hamas is the government, so they also provide aid, run schools and hospitals, etc.
Point being, there’s far more nuance to the whole situation than “Palestine bad.”
Point being, there’s far more nuance to the whole situation than “Palestine bad.”
The author tweeted the following (https://twitter.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/171333500612114051...):
> To be entirely plain.
> I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation.
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
> If that is a crime, send me back to jail.
I think this is pretty clearly supporting Hamas. The "in the coming" bit gives him a bit of leeway, of course, since he's not actually saying he supported the October 7 massacre itself (though presumably he is saying he would support another one, if it were it to occur now?), but he certainly doesn't seem to be making the sort of "I support Palestinians, not Hamas" argument that you assume.
Personally, as an American, I've been told by Europeans here that our attitudes towards free speech are bizarre, and that government has an important role to play in, ah, curating the information ecosystem. Despite that, I still believe that people like Murray should be perfectly free to argue for their views, however much I personally find them abhorrent.
> To be entirely plain.
> I have always viscerally opposed war. I have dedicated my life to conflict resolution and reconciliation.
> But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support.
> If that is a crime, send me back to jail.
I think this is pretty clearly supporting Hamas. The "in the coming" bit gives him a bit of leeway, of course, since he's not actually saying he supported the October 7 massacre itself (though presumably he is saying he would support another one, if it were it to occur now?), but he certainly doesn't seem to be making the sort of "I support Palestinians, not Hamas" argument that you assume.
Personally, as an American, I've been told by Europeans here that our attitudes towards free speech are bizarre, and that government has an important role to play in, ah, curating the information ecosystem. Despite that, I still believe that people like Murray should be perfectly free to argue for their views, however much I personally find them abhorrent.
Ah, well that's a bit more clear. I don't agree with what he said. But, it also doesn't strike me as terrorism itself or outside the bounds of free speech (at least as we know it in the US, which isn't quite the same as in the UK).
[I don't have a Twitter account, and try to avoid the site since access seems to be hit-or-miss since Musk took over]
[I don't have a Twitter account, and try to avoid the site since access seems to be hit-or-miss since Musk took over]
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
> PROSCRIBED TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS
> Proscription makes it a criminal offence to:
> belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation;
> arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and.
> wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation.
i think he broke the first rule.
> PROSCRIBED TERRORIST ORGANISATIONS
> Proscription makes it a criminal offence to:
> belong to or invite support for a proscribed organisation;
> arrange a meeting in support of a proscribed organisation; and.
> wear clothing or carry articles in public which arouse reasonable suspicion that an individual is a member or supporter of the proscribed organisation.
i think he broke the first rule.
> i think he broke the first rule.
He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. And he's not a member of Hamas; so I don't see how you figure that he broke rule #1.
But the Home Secretary is now demanding that the police arrest and charge anyone carrying a Palestinian flag (note: not just a Hamas flag). In that context, the letter of the law seems a bit irrelevant.
He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them. And he's not a member of Hamas; so I don't see how you figure that he broke rule #1.
But the Home Secretary is now demanding that the police arrest and charge anyone carrying a Palestinian flag (note: not just a Hamas flag). In that context, the letter of the law seems a bit irrelevant.
> He didn't say that anyone else should support a proscribed organisation; he didn't even invite support for their actions. He just said that he intended to support them.
i think the problem here is the medium. he didn't say he supported the terrorists in private to a friend. he posted it on twitter for everyone to see. i guess one could make a case that it's an invitation for support?
i think the problem here is the medium. he didn't say he supported the terrorists in private to a friend. he posted it on twitter for everyone to see. i guess one could make a case that it's an invitation for support?
> but there aren’t elections
Hamas was elected by the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, in Palestine-wide elections. Fatah immediately launched a coup attempt. That failed in Gaza, but succeeded in the West Bank. It's Fatah (Israel's preferred "negotiating" partner) that won't allow elections; Hamas could only hold an election in Gaza, not in the West Bank. Hamas has no desire to validate the claim tht Gaza and the West Bank are distinct territories, which is the effect that holding an election in Gaza only would have.
Hamas was elected by the whole of the West Bank and Gaza, in Palestine-wide elections. Fatah immediately launched a coup attempt. That failed in Gaza, but succeeded in the West Bank. It's Fatah (Israel's preferred "negotiating" partner) that won't allow elections; Hamas could only hold an election in Gaza, not in the West Bank. Hamas has no desire to validate the claim tht Gaza and the West Bank are distinct territories, which is the effect that holding an election in Gaza only would have.
Regardless of who won't allow new elections, or why, the people don't have a say in their current government (short of internal revolution or similar).
So, like I said, there's a lot more nuance than many Americans recognize. That was my only point. And, based on the author's tweets (now shared in this thread), he actually does support Hamas, which based on British law (also shared in this thread) could actually be illegal.
So, like I said, there's a lot more nuance than many Americans recognize. That was my only point. And, based on the author's tweets (now shared in this thread), he actually does support Hamas, which based on British law (also shared in this thread) could actually be illegal.
> the people don't have a say in their current government
Sure, and I get a say in my government. Every five years. We've had three prime ministers since the last time I was allowed to vote in national elections, including two certifiable crazies.
Some people seem to think that a government isn't legitimate unless it's appointed the way we appoint our government (FSVO "we"). I happen to take the view that an election isn't legitimate, however well it's run, if it's conducted while under military siege.
Sure, and I get a say in my government. Every five years. We've had three prime ministers since the last time I was allowed to vote in national elections, including two certifiable crazies.
Some people seem to think that a government isn't legitimate unless it's appointed the way we appoint our government (FSVO "we"). I happen to take the view that an election isn't legitimate, however well it's run, if it's conducted while under military siege.
To them, they're freedom fighters. They won't learn otherwise without punishment.
Palestine != Hamas
By that logic, the following applies, too.
> people forget (or likely don’t even know) that, when Israel was not yet in a position of asymmetric power and secure statehood, Israeli paramilitaries often committed terror attacks which are indistinguishable from what we have seen Hamas do in recent decades. Deir Yassin, the King David Hotel Bombing, al-Husayniyya Safad, and so on. Now they do not have the need for such acts, when high tech bombing and artillery barrages, international legal sanction, highly trained police, are available. Beheading children and setting off car bombs at shopping centers looks bad internationally, and there’s little reason for it when you are the one with a “legitimate” state. But Israel got to that position in part by using methods indistinguishable from Hamas. Granted, one will say— that wasn’t Israel, it was the Irgun, or the Palmach, or some particular militia: more extremist factions of the Zionist movement. But it’s the same for Palestine. What is the great difference between the Irgun and Hamas, except in terms of success? Israel still engages in extreme brutality, and have even abetted on the ground massacres since the 1970s, but usually in ways that extricate themselves from the same level of responsibility (whether by setting up Lebanese militias to do their dirty work, or by allowing massive Palestinian casualties to be categorized as collateral damage). I can recognize that civilians being killed by artillery in a war zone is categorically different than civilians being assaulted, tortured, raped and executed by ground forces. But the crazy thing that’s forgotten is that Israeli forces did use those same tactics, when it’s situation and power position was more desperate, and it’s reputation not yet based on maintaining the appearance of civility.
> people forget (or likely don’t even know) that, when Israel was not yet in a position of asymmetric power and secure statehood, Israeli paramilitaries often committed terror attacks which are indistinguishable from what we have seen Hamas do in recent decades. Deir Yassin, the King David Hotel Bombing, al-Husayniyya Safad, and so on. Now they do not have the need for such acts, when high tech bombing and artillery barrages, international legal sanction, highly trained police, are available. Beheading children and setting off car bombs at shopping centers looks bad internationally, and there’s little reason for it when you are the one with a “legitimate” state. But Israel got to that position in part by using methods indistinguishable from Hamas. Granted, one will say— that wasn’t Israel, it was the Irgun, or the Palmach, or some particular militia: more extremist factions of the Zionist movement. But it’s the same for Palestine. What is the great difference between the Irgun and Hamas, except in terms of success? Israel still engages in extreme brutality, and have even abetted on the ground massacres since the 1970s, but usually in ways that extricate themselves from the same level of responsibility (whether by setting up Lebanese militias to do their dirty work, or by allowing massive Palestinian casualties to be categorized as collateral damage). I can recognize that civilians being killed by artillery in a war zone is categorically different than civilians being assaulted, tortured, raped and executed by ground forces. But the crazy thing that’s forgotten is that Israeli forces did use those same tactics, when it’s situation and power position was more desperate, and it’s reputation not yet based on maintaining the appearance of civility.
That's whataboutism; although it's true that there are no "good" sides in this conflict, the issue here is that supporting Israel is fine, but supporting Hamas is not because they have been declared a terrorist organization.
Nobody's going to get in trouble for opposing the conflict, or pointing out civilian casualties, displacement, war crimes, etc. But you WILL get on a List if you support Hamas in any way shape or form. Pick your battles, know the risk. Yeah it's not fair, just or morally correct, but this is the reality of things.
Nobody's going to get in trouble for opposing the conflict, or pointing out civilian casualties, displacement, war crimes, etc. But you WILL get on a List if you support Hamas in any way shape or form. Pick your battles, know the risk. Yeah it's not fair, just or morally correct, but this is the reality of things.
Very relevant, and we can think of numerous additional examples. I'm fond of making American Revolution comparisons.
The only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side you're on (or: which side the victors write into history).
The only difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter is which side you're on (or: which side the victors write into history).
>I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
It is a real atrocity that most devices are unable to lie for us when a wrong password is typed and create a mock profile to waste time
It is a real atrocity that most devices are unable to lie for us when a wrong password is typed and create a mock profile to waste time
the only software I recall doing this was TrueCrypt?
You can get sort of a hidden volume by messing with the alignment of a LUKS partition as well.
However, it may not be very smart to do this. Law enforcement aren't dumb, they'll see the signs of your hidden partition, and you can end up in prison for up to two years for your little stunt.
Unless you're hiding something much more incriminating, cooperation is probably your best bet.
However, it may not be very smart to do this. Law enforcement aren't dumb, they'll see the signs of your hidden partition, and you can end up in prison for up to two years for your little stunt.
Unless you're hiding something much more incriminating, cooperation is probably your best bet.
I think the most self-respectful and secure way is to have some encrypted cloud in a jurisdiction which doesn't cooperate with the country you afraid of. Wiping all data from the device and restoring it back after border control.
Hidden partition are definitely more dangerous. Also if these people took your device out of your view point, you need to sell the device and buy a new one before restoring anything.
Hidden partition are definitely more dangerous. Also if these people took your device out of your view point, you need to sell the device and buy a new one before restoring anything.
but this still requires trusting a third party to not change their policies, or to not be hacked or coerced into releasing the data and a myriad other options that a state-backed actor has at their disposal
GrapheneOS has profiles, maybe that's the key. Google refuses to sell me a Pixel, though and I got tired
What do you mean "google refuses to sell me a Pixel?"
You can absolutely do this with Xiaomi phones. You can set up a second password in order to access what is virtually a completely different phone.
You can even set a different fingerprint so that different fingers unlock different profiles.
The feature is called Second Space
You can even set a different fingerprint so that different fingers unlock different profiles.
The feature is called Second Space
I believe some Android ROMs do come with passwords that when entered wipe out everything on the device.
Somehow, I find it ironic that you have to buy a Chinese phone to get this feature.
This is possible on many devices.
Though I’m not sure I want it.
The possibility of no-trace hidden partitions I can’t disprove the existence of does not seem like it would serve me well in the backroom of some government facility where my rights have been revoked.
Though I’m not sure I want it.
The possibility of no-trace hidden partitions I can’t disprove the existence of does not seem like it would serve me well in the backroom of some government facility where my rights have been revoked.
"Here's my unlocked phone, officer!" - "There are no calls, emails or any history in this phone. Are you claiming you have not used this phone to call anybody or interact with any social media?" - "Yes, officer, I never did!" - "Excellent, here are records from your phone company, showing this phone ID making $CRAPTON of calls, and here are records from social media companies showing the IP assigned to this phone accessing your accounts. You just lied to a government agent, and we have a proof of it right here with us, we don't even have to do any work for it. Welcome to hell!".
Or, if you get smart - "Oh yes, officer, I did, but I just reset this phone this morning, because I forgot the password!" - "Too bad, but then you won't object us seizing this phone for further investigation, given that there's nothing on it. There's nothing on it, right? No tricky OSes, no double partitions, no secret codes, nothing like that?" - "Oh yes, officer, absolutely nothing like that!" - "OK, our forensic team would be glad to hear that". In a week: "Our forensic team discovered the presence of Hide My Real Data Super Secure Double Password Toolkit on the phone. You have lied to a government agent and now are under indictment for it. Welcome to hell!".
Or, if you get smart - "Oh yes, officer, I did, but I just reset this phone this morning, because I forgot the password!" - "Too bad, but then you won't object us seizing this phone for further investigation, given that there's nothing on it. There's nothing on it, right? No tricky OSes, no double partitions, no secret codes, nothing like that?" - "Oh yes, officer, absolutely nothing like that!" - "OK, our forensic team would be glad to hear that". In a week: "Our forensic team discovered the presence of Hide My Real Data Super Secure Double Password Toolkit on the phone. You have lied to a government agent and now are under indictment for it. Welcome to hell!".
> I had no right to remain silent. I had to give full and accurate information in response to questions. It was a criminal offence to withhold any relevant information.
This is the one that bothers me the most to be honest, how is this possible ?
Couldn't one just claim they don't remember constantly, as it seems there is no 'probable cause' or even any traditional 'evidence'.
This is the one that bothers me the most to be honest, how is this possible ?
Couldn't one just claim they don't remember constantly, as it seems there is no 'probable cause' or even any traditional 'evidence'.
Like many other things in world - it's not a binary yes or no. It's about what the judge or jury will believe. If you say you don't remember your password but they pull up logs and show that you have just used that password 3 hours earlier, then jury will almost certainly find you guilty, even if yes, there is absolutely no way to prove what the objective "truth" is.
Even for the UK that's a bit insane.
You could, but they can then choose to detain you further, do a full court case, and if they uncover evidence (or evidence that you did not, in fact, forget), you're screwed anyway.
They'll find ways to make you remember.
Arbitrary search and seizure at the border has been a steady feature in western countries for, like, the solid part of the past two decade. I have travelled to the USA three times during this period and during every single visit I had been pulled aside by the TSA for extra screening (SSSS). In the last 5 years or so when I return to my home country of New Zealand, I have been repeatedly searched by customs which has never happened before.
I would not be surprised at all if my name is on a list somewhere, despite me being very much inactive on social media and does not subscribe to any remotely radical ideology. Perhaps as a unmarried millennial male I just had that Unabomber vibe and must be stopped before I turn.
I do sympathize with Mr Murray , however there is really no need to act like it was a brand new development when similar stuff has been going on for pretty much my entire adult life and his recent career.
I would not be surprised at all if my name is on a list somewhere, despite me being very much inactive on social media and does not subscribe to any remotely radical ideology. Perhaps as a unmarried millennial male I just had that Unabomber vibe and must be stopped before I turn.
I do sympathize with Mr Murray , however there is really no need to act like it was a brand new development when similar stuff has been going on for pretty much my entire adult life and his recent career.
[deleted]
While scanning your comment history looking for unusual interests, I found an intriguing comment that's unrelated to this topic: "Cash is already heavily monitored and most petty criminals have already moved on to Amazon gift cards."
Can you describe what you mean when you say cash is heavily monitored?
Can you describe what you mean when you say cash is heavily monitored?
Before computerization of the finance industry, banks used to keep stashes of "ransom money" with all serial numbers already recorded so they could be tracked to some extent. This is no longer necessary as modern money handling equipment makes it trivial to keep a detailed log of every single bill they receive or give out.
And what if you forgo banks entirely? Well, governments have also been legislating to slowly stigmatize cash use. Google "civil forfeiture" and you will find countless examples of the police taking people's money away without due process, as if carrying large amounts of cash itself is a crime.
And what if you forgo banks entirely? Well, governments have also been legislating to slowly stigmatize cash use. Google "civil forfeiture" and you will find countless examples of the police taking people's money away without due process, as if carrying large amounts of cash itself is a crime.
The reason for this is the expansion of the TSA (or airport security body). When you have a very small number of people/devices, you just let people in. When you have a large apparatus, you make use of it. And the large apparatus will try to find work for itself by stopping as many people as humanly possible. They'll also stop the most normal people out-there because they tend to make less of a fuss about it.
Recently, I flew SFO and they seemed to have a shortage of TSA officers or something (all security booths were empty). There were a couple old guys, they just randomly selected people for screening but everyone else were just let go without baggage screening.
Recently, I flew SFO and they seemed to have a shortage of TSA officers or something (all security booths were empty). There were a couple old guys, they just randomly selected people for screening but everyone else were just let go without baggage screening.
That's because TSA doesn't do the security at SFO [1]
SF has had issues with drug trafficking through the airport due to this [2].
[1]: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/answering-holiday-trav... [2]: https://www.sfgate.com/cannabis/article/sfo-armed-robbery-un...
[1]: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/answering-holiday-trav... [2]: https://www.sfgate.com/cannabis/article/sfo-armed-robbery-un...
The most logical way I an explain such events and the general decline of our societies is that a some people in power are criminals and in their paranoia are silencing all moral individuals who may pose a threat to them.
To find out who the criminals are in our system, we just need to identify those who are giving the commands. Unfortunately, a lot of people in high positions up the chain are likely compromised individuals (higher ups have dirt on them) so they will not reveal their source.
It seems like society is held up by a hierarchy of blackmail. We need to obtain info on compromised individuals and use them to spill the beans on their superiors via plea bargains.
What governments did to Julian Assange and what they're doing to Craig Murray is criminal. Those who are responsible should be prosecuted and the victims should be compensated.
To find out who the criminals are in our system, we just need to identify those who are giving the commands. Unfortunately, a lot of people in high positions up the chain are likely compromised individuals (higher ups have dirt on them) so they will not reveal their source.
It seems like society is held up by a hierarchy of blackmail. We need to obtain info on compromised individuals and use them to spill the beans on their superiors via plea bargains.
What governments did to Julian Assange and what they're doing to Craig Murray is criminal. Those who are responsible should be prosecuted and the victims should be compensated.
>This is an enormous abuse of human rights. The abuse of process in refusing both a lawyer and the right to remain silent, the inquiry into perfectly legal campaigning which is in no way terrorism-associated, the political questioning, the financial snooping and the seizure of material related to my private life, were all based on an utterly fake claim that I am associated with terrorism.
It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but when you enter the UK you give up your human rights. Easy mistake to make assuming you had those here.
It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but when you enter the UK you give up your human rights. Easy mistake to make assuming you had those here.
[deleted]
The UK is still a member of the ECHR, so there are human rights.
It is a wholesale violator of human rights at massive scale and therefore the precedent for protection of rights under that state is simply non-existent. Magna Carta, Habeus Corpus - irrelevant given the massive, immense scale of the UK's wholesale abrogation of billions of human beings' rights.
As a sidenote has anyone else been surprised by the extreme political iron-fist and omnipresent media control to side with Israel?
When talking to colleagues, family, and even my Israeli friends there's a plurality of opinion, sadness, serious discussions, but when looking at mainstream media, even relatively moderate it seems like everyone and their grandma is screaming for bombs and are "tired of the stupid poor palestinians" like everyone forgot the enormous plights they have gone through, the hundreds of thousands dead over decades, the property stolen by settlers and that they were mostly moderate farmers before they were annexed and carpet bombed (There's countless of videos of this).
It's like living in a Black Mirror episode.
The worlds largest military carpet bombing a tiny strip of land and a downtrodden people, and i have never seen politicians this bloodthirsty.
At the same time i see very, very few public figures, colleagues included having the courage to call out the atrocities done by Israel continuously, for fear of "something" while there's never ending stories from the opposite side.
Can anyone tell me what that something is - and if this is some extreme geopolitical importance of Israel to the west that the idea of the western "free society" has finally come to some screeching halt?
How can there be such an enormous difference between "the man on the street" and the media landscape?
My grandparents fled war, and the way the west talking and behaving is so incredibly shameful to me, but i don't recognise this war hunger when i turn off the TV.
When talking to colleagues, family, and even my Israeli friends there's a plurality of opinion, sadness, serious discussions, but when looking at mainstream media, even relatively moderate it seems like everyone and their grandma is screaming for bombs and are "tired of the stupid poor palestinians" like everyone forgot the enormous plights they have gone through, the hundreds of thousands dead over decades, the property stolen by settlers and that they were mostly moderate farmers before they were annexed and carpet bombed (There's countless of videos of this).
It's like living in a Black Mirror episode.
The worlds largest military carpet bombing a tiny strip of land and a downtrodden people, and i have never seen politicians this bloodthirsty.
At the same time i see very, very few public figures, colleagues included having the courage to call out the atrocities done by Israel continuously, for fear of "something" while there's never ending stories from the opposite side.
Can anyone tell me what that something is - and if this is some extreme geopolitical importance of Israel to the west that the idea of the western "free society" has finally come to some screeching halt?
How can there be such an enormous difference between "the man on the street" and the media landscape?
My grandparents fled war, and the way the west talking and behaving is so incredibly shameful to me, but i don't recognise this war hunger when i turn off the TV.
Are you in the USA? Apparently the american media is particularly pro-israel. I am in Australia and find the media is very pro-israel but is happy to also say that israel’s actions are unsavory. I understand that Europe is much more balanced than Australia on this one.
Great question, i'm in a scandinavian country that is what is so surprising to me.
I have family both here in the US and the UK, and everywhere seems to be the same. It's almost like there's been some secret doctrine implemented.
As an example the "relatively" moderate labour parties of both Denmark and the UK as come out as pretty extreme militaristic hardliner supporters of Israel doubting the effectiveness of ceasefires, using vulgar language about the Palestinians and refusing to acknowledge any crimes committed by "their side".
This is very surprising to me as i have family who fled the London bombings in WW2 and have always talked about the extreme importance of thinking clearly in conflicts, being merciful, never being going "hardliner" and most importantly being sceptical of military industrial complexes.
I have family both here in the US and the UK, and everywhere seems to be the same. It's almost like there's been some secret doctrine implemented.
As an example the "relatively" moderate labour parties of both Denmark and the UK as come out as pretty extreme militaristic hardliner supporters of Israel doubting the effectiveness of ceasefires, using vulgar language about the Palestinians and refusing to acknowledge any crimes committed by "their side".
This is very surprising to me as i have family who fled the London bombings in WW2 and have always talked about the extreme importance of thinking clearly in conflicts, being merciful, never being going "hardliner" and most importantly being sceptical of military industrial complexes.
Can confirm it's the same Black Mirror level here, another European country. This is the third time I see this worrisome pattern in the last few years. I don't exactly understand what's going on.
>I don't exactly understand what's going on.
What do you think Jeffrey Epstein's island was being used for? Do you think he was filming rich and influential people sleeping with underage girls purely for his own amusement, with no intention to generate blackmail material on anyone? If not, who do you think inherited that blackmail material when he passed away under suspicious circumstances?
What do you think Jeffrey Epstein's island was being used for? Do you think he was filming rich and influential people sleeping with underage girls purely for his own amusement, with no intention to generate blackmail material on anyone? If not, who do you think inherited that blackmail material when he passed away under suspicious circumstances?
> It's almost like there's been some secret doctrine implemented.
At least during Cold War, people were aware that there's a Cold War going on. Now everything is supposed to be fine and dandy, yet it feels we're constantly subjected to psy-ops even from "our side".
I don't think that the rise of conspiracy theories in recent years is a coincidence: Something is in play, some people can "sense it" but there's just not enough information to pin it down. Moreover, existing preoccupations are exploited to push these people to fringe theories and make them a laughing stock.
At least during Cold War, people were aware that there's a Cold War going on. Now everything is supposed to be fine and dandy, yet it feels we're constantly subjected to psy-ops even from "our side".
I don't think that the rise of conspiracy theories in recent years is a coincidence: Something is in play, some people can "sense it" but there's just not enough information to pin it down. Moreover, existing preoccupations are exploited to push these people to fringe theories and make them a laughing stock.
There is no conspiracy theory needed; people are generally bigoted and biased, and the fact that the latest escalation was set off by a very brutal terrorist attack (or series thereof) by Hamas, a terrorist organization that doesn't really give off "freedom fighter" vibes, and which has a religious extremism component than titillates and scares people, only exacerbates the issue.
This is just the past few decades of Western coverage of this conflict on steroids, or exaggerated so much that the bias is becoming obvious to people who never paid much attention before.
This is just the past few decades of Western coverage of this conflict on steroids, or exaggerated so much that the bias is becoming obvious to people who never paid much attention before.
If you compare how many Palestinians are in power positions globally vs how many Israelis are in power positions globally it makes sense.
> I understand that Europe is much more balanced than Australia on this one.
I'm in the UK. It depends what you mean by "balanced". What I'm seeing on TV news has been changing. At first, they didn't try to link Hamas to terrorism. They've been berated by Israelis for that; so now every time they mention Hamas, they add a clause like "Hamas, an organisation that is proscribed in the UK and many other countries for terrorism".
Apart from that, the "balance" I'm seeing is a kind of passive-aggressive pseudo-balance. For example, they do report statements from Israeli leaders calling for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza; in some cases, favourably (as if moving two million people from Gaza into refugee camps in the Sinai desert is a sensible compromise). So, they express hope that Egypt will open the border at Rafah, which is exactly what these Israeli extremists want.
There's no serious questioning or investigation of the claims from the IDF or Israeli government. You just see lots of wailing grandmas (in Israel and in Gaza), which seems to be the MSM's standard way of reporting conflicts these days. So it's war-porn.
I'm in the UK. It depends what you mean by "balanced". What I'm seeing on TV news has been changing. At first, they didn't try to link Hamas to terrorism. They've been berated by Israelis for that; so now every time they mention Hamas, they add a clause like "Hamas, an organisation that is proscribed in the UK and many other countries for terrorism".
Apart from that, the "balance" I'm seeing is a kind of passive-aggressive pseudo-balance. For example, they do report statements from Israeli leaders calling for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza; in some cases, favourably (as if moving two million people from Gaza into refugee camps in the Sinai desert is a sensible compromise). So, they express hope that Egypt will open the border at Rafah, which is exactly what these Israeli extremists want.
There's no serious questioning or investigation of the claims from the IDF or Israeli government. You just see lots of wailing grandmas (in Israel and in Gaza), which seems to be the MSM's standard way of reporting conflicts these days. So it's war-porn.
BTW, the other thing that's "odd" is that all the channels have their tone in sync; BBC, ITV and CH4 change their tone in lockstep.
Which Israeli leader called for the expulsion of all Palestinians from Gaza? I haven't heard or read any of that.
https://twitter.com/MisgavINS/status/1714183691574948036 Think tank of a former PM.
I think there's a big difference between "Israeli leaders call for expulsion of Palestinians from Gaza" (presenting it as if it were an official governmental policy, which it never was), and a single paper by a think tank - no idea which "former PM" you are referring to, none of the people affiliated with Misgav[1] seem to fit this description. In any case, there's some number of people thinking evacuating Gaza is desireable, in Israel - and much larger number of people thinking getting rid of Jews in Palestine (you do realize that's what "Free Palestine" and "from the river to the sea" means, do you), both in Middle East and in Europe and on any college campus in the US. Neither is likely to happen, but the latter is the official political position of the government of Gaza (Hamas) and the former is no more than a single paper by a single think tank.
[1] https://www.izs.org.il/board-of-directors/
[1] https://www.izs.org.il/board-of-directors/
> Apparently the american media is particularly pro-israel.
Is it the same media that reprinted without any checking Hamas claim that Israel bombed Al-Ahli hospital and 500 people were dead and over 600 wounded (the real situation was an Islamic Jihad rocket fell in the parking lot near the hospital, and likely about 10 to 50 people were hurt by it), and run with it for days trying to present it as if it was reliable information? Or there's some other US press which I'm not aware of? Some of this "particularly pro-Israel" press even refuses to name Hamas a terrorist organization. I don't know how much pro-Israel one can be than that.
Is it the same media that reprinted without any checking Hamas claim that Israel bombed Al-Ahli hospital and 500 people were dead and over 600 wounded (the real situation was an Islamic Jihad rocket fell in the parking lot near the hospital, and likely about 10 to 50 people were hurt by it), and run with it for days trying to present it as if it was reliable information? Or there's some other US press which I'm not aware of? Some of this "particularly pro-Israel" press even refuses to name Hamas a terrorist organization. I don't know how much pro-Israel one can be than that.
We saw a sample of this when they ousted Corbyn
logicchains(1)
It's weird because with so many Palestinians in the media, the state department, etc. you would think there would be overwhelming support for Palestine.
I'm surprised that you're surprised. Hasn't it been the narrative for decades now?
Israel is a strong strategic partner of the US, so NATO members usually side with them in this conflict.
Israel is a strong strategic partner of the US, so NATO members usually side with them in this conflict.
US Media is owned by US Bomb-makers. Fact.
They want the war because it sells bombs.
They want the war because it sells bombs.
Israel is an ethnostate[1], resolutions of Congress notwithstanding[2]. Imagine if Biden said "The US is a Nation-State Of The White People And Them Alone" the way a leading Israeli spoke about Israel[3].
But instead all major western governments are busy sucking up to Israel (this article is just one example) and declaring that Israel will always be our best ally.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630368973/israel-passes-contr...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-vote-resolution-israel...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/702264118/netanyahu-says-isra...
But instead all major western governments are busy sucking up to Israel (this article is just one example) and declaring that Israel will always be our best ally.
[1] https://www.npr.org/2018/07/19/630368973/israel-passes-contr...
[2] https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/house-vote-resolution-israel...
[3] https://www.npr.org/2019/03/11/702264118/netanyahu-says-isra...
Lots of states are ethnostates to varying degrees. Japan and South Korea are arguably much more restrictive about who is considered a member than Israel. But there are many more; Finland, Iran, and Hungary come to mind. The New World has few ethnostates, but in Eurasia they are more the norm than the exception.
and none of those were funded by Britain in 1948 on foreign soil
True, but I think that's more due to the age of the state than the geographic location. Israel is very young and was founded on land that already had a lot of people living there. Now they're mostly gone and Israel is declaring that it exists solely for the non-native inhabitants. Let's translate that into American terms so it's more understandable.
What if the entire history of US settlement and expansion, from 1600s to present, was compressed to 70 years, then our government declared that it existed solely for white people regardless of Democracy and laid siege to all remaining Indian reservations?
Yet the same major news organizations and politicians that supposedly stand against racism cannot find any backbone to stand up for their principles when it comes to Israel. We were supposed to be better than this.
What if the entire history of US settlement and expansion, from 1600s to present, was compressed to 70 years, then our government declared that it existed solely for white people regardless of Democracy and laid siege to all remaining Indian reservations?
Yet the same major news organizations and politicians that supposedly stand against racism cannot find any backbone to stand up for their principles when it comes to Israel. We were supposed to be better than this.
Many of the people already living there were Jews. Many - about half IIRC - of the people who came there afterwards were refugees from surrounding Arab countries. What better demonstration could there have been that the Jewish people need a safe haven? Well, I can think of a better demonstration, because we saw it two weeks ago.
> Many - about half IIRC - of the people who came there afterwards were refugees from surrounding Arab countries.
It's true that many Jews lived in harmony with Arab nations prior to the founding of Israel. Founding Israel is what made those relations go sour. That literally was where this whole conflict started for the aboriginal peoples of the Middle East.
> Well, I can think of a better demonstration, because we saw it two weeks ago.
The attacks wouldn't have happened if the founders of Israel (not all of whom were Jews, looking at you Britain) hadn't decided to interpret an ancient holy book in a genocidal way.
The Palestinians lived there. Israel has been in the process of kicking them out ever since its founding. It doesn't get to blame the victim here. Yes, I know about the holocaust etc. etc. but one genocide doesn't warrant another.
It's true that many Jews lived in harmony with Arab nations prior to the founding of Israel. Founding Israel is what made those relations go sour. That literally was where this whole conflict started for the aboriginal peoples of the Middle East.
> Well, I can think of a better demonstration, because we saw it two weeks ago.
The attacks wouldn't have happened if the founders of Israel (not all of whom were Jews, looking at you Britain) hadn't decided to interpret an ancient holy book in a genocidal way.
The Palestinians lived there. Israel has been in the process of kicking them out ever since its founding. It doesn't get to blame the victim here. Yes, I know about the holocaust etc. etc. but one genocide doesn't warrant another.
> The attacks wouldn't have happened if the founders of Israel (not all of whom were Jews, looking at you Britain) hadn't decided to interpret an ancient holy book in a genocidal way.
> The Palestinians lived there. Israel has been in the process of kicking them out ever since its founding.
You seem to interpret the history in really one way here...
You seem to interpret the history in really one way here...
Nobody is (was?) objecting that the Jewish people needed a safe haven or a land of their own; the objection is that they took / colonised the Palestinian land, claimed nobody lived there anyway, and had the early UN and its member-states validate their claim, then committed acts of war and crimes against civilians to claim more of the land than the UN decided they should have.
A good introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGVgjS98OsU
A good introduction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGVgjS98OsU
That the West supports Israel has very deep, historical reasons. And I agree, jews (as an ethnicity / people) deserve and need an own state. Especially after the holocaust. The implementation could have been handled so much better, because the Palestinians also deserve a home. And having Israel and Palestinians sharing a home nation is no futher away than it was in decades. No easy solutions.
What are you talking about? About 20% of Israel population are Arabs. Only 7% of them self-identify as "Palestinians". Regardless of that, they all enjoy same rights as every other citizen. Which is more rights for the vast majority of them than in any surrounding Arab country. Imagine if you declared "US is a single-race country", totally ignoring existence of non-white people in the US. I think some might have been upset at such declaration, and even more would consider a person proclaiming such thing to be extremely ignorant.
anytime gov'ts are "legally" given special powers under the purpose of eliminating some evil and aspects of said implementation are allowed to be secret, this power WILL be abused. Look at FISA courts for an example (Patriot Act) in the US. No secrets, FIOA requests should allow all to be viewed unredacted etc....
He tweeted:
>"But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support." >“If that is a crime, send me back to jail.” > https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511
You can't openly support a terrorist group in the UK.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
>"But in the coming Gaza genocide, every act of armed resistance by Hamas and Hezbollah will have my support." >“If that is a crime, send me back to jail.” > https://x.com/CraigMurrayOrg/status/1713335006121140511
You can't openly support a terrorist group in the UK.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...
Supporting designated terrorist organizations is not cool. Also Hamas just committed a bunch of grizzly murders of innocent civilians, not exactly resistance fighters at the moment. I am all for root causes and opposing the seemingly never ending Israeli occupation, and the settlements which are forcibly displacing Palestinians from their homes, but aligning one’s self with Hamas, especially at this time, is both morally wrong and also going to get you on watch lists, and probably rightly so.
To make the situation better you should have compassion and also strive towards compromise and not just pick your side and root for them to dominate the other - it doesn’t have to be zero sum.
To make the situation better you should have compassion and also strive towards compromise and not just pick your side and root for them to dominate the other - it doesn’t have to be zero sum.
Judea and Samaria (aka west bank) were part of the land promised to the Jews by the league of nations in the San Remo convention, which is binding by international law and originally also included Jordan. Considering the Arabs have never agreed to the partition plan of 1948 it is well within Israel right to contest this area and the common definition of "occupied territories" is not that clear cut considering no country owned it before 1967.
The settlements themselves don't displace any Arabs from their home, they were built either on Jewish land (Jews lived in Judea and Samaria until 1948) or on a land which didn't have a specific ownership. Usually if an Arab can show that they have ownership for a parcel of land they will get it in court.
In any case, Gaza is not occupied and except from the hostages there are no Jews in Gaza. They could live peacefully side by side near Israel without any "siege" if only they accepted that Israel should have a right to exist.
The settlements themselves don't displace any Arabs from their home, they were built either on Jewish land (Jews lived in Judea and Samaria until 1948) or on a land which didn't have a specific ownership. Usually if an Arab can show that they have ownership for a parcel of land they will get it in court.
In any case, Gaza is not occupied and except from the hostages there are no Jews in Gaza. They could live peacefully side by side near Israel without any "siege" if only they accepted that Israel should have a right to exist.
What the hell is this wacky answer?
People that argue that one side deserves the land because of x, y and z while the other side doesn’t are part of the problem. Your view of the world is a huge part of the problem. It is partisan and zero sum and justifies discrimination and ethnic cleansing using pseudointellectualism and cherry picked historical facts.
People that argue that one side deserves the land because of x, y and z while the other side doesn’t are part of the problem. Your view of the world is a huge part of the problem. It is partisan and zero sum and justifies discrimination and ethnic cleansing using pseudointellectualism and cherry picked historical facts.
[deleted]
I would like to live in a world where my fellow adults have the liberty to make a complete and utter fool out of themselves.
At the same time, if hysteric antisemitism is spreading like wildfire, then I wonder what the right tool to address it is. I'm guessing it must be a surreal time to be a Jewish person on the left.
At the same time, if hysteric antisemitism is spreading like wildfire, then I wonder what the right tool to address it is. I'm guessing it must be a surreal time to be a Jewish person on the left.
[deleted]
dash2(2)
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.
I was once investigated for terrorism by Special Branch in the UK in about 1996.
They came to my parent's house at a weekend to question me. I'd just happened to have gone home for the weekend to see my folks. I was running perhaps the largest warez site on the Internet at the time, so I thought I was super busted.
The detective sat me down and said to me, "What do you know about a plot to kill the President?" and I burst out laughing, mostly out of relief. He stares daggers at me and says "You're not taking me very seriously, are you Mr Charles?"
Luckily he did not detain me. We came to the conclusion that one of the hundreds of people I'd given an account to on one of my Linux servers had sent a death threat to [email protected]. Apparently it contained information about the president's movements that was "not well known."
I never saw the email, but the detective called me on the day they were going out to pick Kushil up. I'd given him an account a few months previously so he could play MUDs and download porn. Seemed like a really nice guy. The detective read the end of the email to me over the phone, "Come get my ass you bastards," it said, and then had his address and map co-ordinates to his house.
Nobody ever saw Kushil again after that.
They came to my parent's house at a weekend to question me. I'd just happened to have gone home for the weekend to see my folks. I was running perhaps the largest warez site on the Internet at the time, so I thought I was super busted.
The detective sat me down and said to me, "What do you know about a plot to kill the President?" and I burst out laughing, mostly out of relief. He stares daggers at me and says "You're not taking me very seriously, are you Mr Charles?"
Luckily he did not detain me. We came to the conclusion that one of the hundreds of people I'd given an account to on one of my Linux servers had sent a death threat to [email protected]. Apparently it contained information about the president's movements that was "not well known."
I never saw the email, but the detective called me on the day they were going out to pick Kushil up. I'd given him an account a few months previously so he could play MUDs and download porn. Seemed like a really nice guy. The detective read the end of the email to me over the phone, "Come get my ass you bastards," it said, and then had his address and map co-ordinates to his house.
Nobody ever saw Kushil again after that.
Back then you could send an email “from” any address without verification, and I’d bet they weren’t sophisticated enough to detect that. There were many open and/or hacked SMTP gateways. I went to a federal military school and showed people how to do this on our own .mil servers. This would be deadly serious today, but email was 95% jokes and flame wars anyway, so it just made things more hilarious. Even Stanford CS’s SMTP in the 2010s allowed unauthenticated “from” addresses, and someone was using it to impersonate the Google founder emails for promoting and funding their startup.
Those wild times. I would often use a cia.gov FROM address on a lot of stuff. The crazy shit you could do. I ran one of the EFnet servers, so I just added HOSTS entries to the server so that I was on from cia.gov and whitehouse.gov all the time which confused a lot of people.
While I think this could be an overstep, I think the author is quite obviously withholding some important context here. Why would they not show the tweet referenced here?
“I volunteered that I thought I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of twitter. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide.”
“I volunteered that I thought I understood the tweet that worried them and agreed it could have been more nuanced. This was the limitation of twitter. It was intended to refer only to the current situation within Gaza and the Palestinian people’s right of self-defence from genocide.”
The guy also seems to be industrial-grade nutcase:
> Murray questioned the official UK government account of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, March 2018, writing on his blog that Israeli security services were more likely to be behind the poisoning than Russia and that, while Russia lacked a motive, "Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian reputation".
He also served 8 months in jail for disclosing the identities of women testifying in sexual harassment and rape case, which the court explicitly prohibited to disclose. All-around nice person, as it seems.
> Murray questioned the official UK government account of the Skripal poisoning in Salisbury, March 2018, writing on his blog that Israeli security services were more likely to be behind the poisoning than Russia and that, while Russia lacked a motive, "Israel has a clear motivation for damaging the Russian reputation".
He also served 8 months in jail for disclosing the identities of women testifying in sexual harassment and rape case, which the court explicitly prohibited to disclose. All-around nice person, as it seems.
I get the impression that the way the law was being interpreted was that there is a window of one hour in which:
a) in which one does not have the right to remain silent
I could imagine a potential world in which one or the other might briefly apply, but both together would be a complete license for abuse of course. So that can't be entirely right.
Reading the actual text of the law [1] I can't quite see how that would be the intended interpretation. I hope someone with more knowledge of British Law can clarify.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
(edited for clarity)
a) in which one does not have the right to remain silent
AND
I could imagine a potential world in which one or the other might briefly apply, but both together would be a complete license for abuse of course. So that can't be entirely right.
Reading the actual text of the law [1] I can't quite see how that would be the intended interpretation. I hope someone with more knowledge of British Law can clarify.
[1] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
(edited for clarity)
> there is a window of one hour in which:
It could be interesting to simply waste time for that hour, while still being co-operative. Answer extraordinarily slowly, be as verbose as possible, go on as many tangents as possible and go into as much detail on your first answer as you possibly can imagine, so the first answer takes the entire hour.
You're still being co operative and answering questions, they just run out of time before you get a lawyer or they cut you loose.
It could be interesting to simply waste time for that hour, while still being co-operative. Answer extraordinarily slowly, be as verbose as possible, go on as many tangents as possible and go into as much detail on your first answer as you possibly can imagine, so the first answer takes the entire hour.
You're still being co operative and answering questions, they just run out of time before you get a lawyer or they cut you loose.
Boys and girls: if traveling to or from the UK, don't take a phone. If you really must, make it a burner phone.
Maybe some lawyer can explain to some complete noobie. I thought you always have the right to not answer any questions until you have your lawyer present, and that you have the right to that one phone call to a lawyer. My knowledge comes entirely from movies and novels. I understand that there could be exceptions, but what is the basic rationale of the exception here? The UK is a country of laws, and generally the laws are not absurd. What is the extend of this exception? Can the information they get from you be used in a court of law to incriminate you?
That's probably very US centric given how much TV comes from there. Does the UK even have a constitution or does the buck stop with the monarch?
The "UK constitution" is a wide set of documents, both laws (some really old) and legal precedent that determine how the country's supposed to operate.
The main concept is "parliamentary supremacy", which means that the parliament (house of commons/lords) can pass any law except one that would bind their action in future. Basically, they can pass whatever law they want, and pass a law repealing it later. The expectation is that they wouldn't do anything too heinous because reasons. The idea that the monarch can forcibly disband parliament doesn't really exist anymore. (although, some laws occasionally do get blocked by that apparatus)
I learned way too much about this while their high court was deciding on the constitutionality of the process of leaving the EU. I wonder how much of it is baby-duck syndrome, but I love living in a republic.
The main concept is "parliamentary supremacy", which means that the parliament (house of commons/lords) can pass any law except one that would bind their action in future. Basically, they can pass whatever law they want, and pass a law repealing it later. The expectation is that they wouldn't do anything too heinous because reasons. The idea that the monarch can forcibly disband parliament doesn't really exist anymore. (although, some laws occasionally do get blocked by that apparatus)
I learned way too much about this while their high court was deciding on the constitutionality of the process of leaving the EU. I wonder how much of it is baby-duck syndrome, but I love living in a republic.
The exception is that the airport is not a part of the UK sovereign territory, but is rather considered an extra-territorial possession of the UK, akin to a colony, which can be governed separately.
Thank you. I guess that could be the explanation. Still, it's strange that you could be "detained" and interrogated and not be allowed to see your lawyer, and not have the right to remain silent. In the US I would expect to retain all my rights even if I travel to the US Virgin Islands, for example, even if these islands are not part of any state.
AFAIK, the same is true of the USA: its international airports are extra-territorial possessions in which the USA is not obligated to enforce its human rights agreements ...
> I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
Veracrypt hidden partition, plausible deniability, use it.
> They asked how considered my tweets were
That’s exactly the reason why, he definitely made a tweet that put him in some arbitrary list that feeds into an official “anti-terrorism” list, believe it or not, there’s a whole business and scheme on adding people on these lists and cancel them just because they tweet something, and sometimes, even taking an out-of-context and make an article about it somewhere, and use that as a “reference” to cancel you and put you in many hidden lists. Besides what some are mentioning here about privacy act and what not, I would go in a different approach, these lists should be searchable online just like any public records, and you have the right to challenge it in court if someone put your name in there and sue for it, but keeping it secret meaning there’s a hidden entity actively blackmailing individuals for their thoughts, the “CI/CD” for these lists goes like this: article about you (fake or real won’t matter) => some unknown list maintained by shady organization => feeding into an official country anti-terrorism list => feeding into a regional one like EU or similar, leading to travel ban, banks ban, etc. and none of them will question the source of such list.
Veracrypt hidden partition, plausible deniability, use it.
> They asked how considered my tweets were
That’s exactly the reason why, he definitely made a tweet that put him in some arbitrary list that feeds into an official “anti-terrorism” list, believe it or not, there’s a whole business and scheme on adding people on these lists and cancel them just because they tweet something, and sometimes, even taking an out-of-context and make an article about it somewhere, and use that as a “reference” to cancel you and put you in many hidden lists. Besides what some are mentioning here about privacy act and what not, I would go in a different approach, these lists should be searchable online just like any public records, and you have the right to challenge it in court if someone put your name in there and sue for it, but keeping it secret meaning there’s a hidden entity actively blackmailing individuals for their thoughts, the “CI/CD” for these lists goes like this: article about you (fake or real won’t matter) => some unknown list maintained by shady organization => feeding into an official country anti-terrorism list => feeding into a regional one like EU or similar, leading to travel ban, banks ban, etc. and none of them will question the source of such list.
If you believe it was an abuse of human rights, you should have refused to comply.
Ahhh the find out part of fuck around and find out. Sounds like their unequivocal support for a terrorist organization didn't go so well.
>I had to give up any passwords to my devices. It was a criminal offence not to do this.
You can forget passwords but you can't forget passkeys.
You can forget passwords but you can't forget passkeys.
This is just crazy. So this can happen basically to ANYONE for any/no reason !!
The modern government of the UK has, as far as I can tell, become a raging pseudo-fascist nanny state of grotesque proportions. It combines the worst aspects of old fashioned authoritarianism with smothering feel-good nannyism to repress individual freedoms in all sorts of creative ways that serve every side of the bureaucratic spectrum while persistently moving the ratchet forward on fundamental state power.
That a country which for centuries was considered a bastion of fundamental individual freedoms should pass hideous deformities of the rule of law like the Terrorism Act (among the other things they've been doing) is sad.
That a country which for centuries was considered a bastion of fundamental individual freedoms should pass hideous deformities of the rule of law like the Terrorism Act (among the other things they've been doing) is sad.
I hope some of you realize that this is not normal, and not common in all the western world as some of you suggest. There are several countries where the right of any individual is valued much higher than whatever that terror bullshit is. Any EU citizen has more personality rights.
This is really disturbing and would this be my government I would try to change whatever I can or flee.
This is really disturbing and would this be my government I would try to change whatever I can or flee.
Anyone saw his blog post titled "now we have your attention" right after Hamas killed everyone at the rave?
Weird that he got questioned you say?
Weird that he got questioned you say?
Yeah the guy is complaining about being investigated for terrorism when he clearly and openly supports terrorist organizations including Hamas, according to his blog. Get a grip, HN.
What did they say was the crime? They had to suspect you did something. A probable cause. In the United States if you are suspected of cyber-terrorism they will just breach your WiFi/router and take the information without your knowledge. They will create zero days and exploit your devices. All under the terrorism statute. That’s why it’s best to never attach you iPhone to your home WiFi networks.
I hope that stories like this make people realise the rights that they have given up and start campaigning and voting to get them back again.
Terrorism laws are so obviously hugely disproportionate to what they allegedly protect against at this point.
Governments should balance two kinds of freedom. "freedom to (do as we please)" and "freedom from (others harming us)".
If these terrorism laws were really about protecting "freedom from" then they would also have a blanket ban on cars, guns, knives, alcohol and tobacco, all of which cause orders of magnitude more harm. Of course bans like that have been historically attempted and populations very clearly told Governments attempting to enforce them in which direction to fuck off to.
But these kind of abuses are a lot easier for people to ignore when they always happen to "someone else" but "probably will never happen to me".
Terrorism laws are so obviously hugely disproportionate to what they allegedly protect against at this point.
Governments should balance two kinds of freedom. "freedom to (do as we please)" and "freedom from (others harming us)".
If these terrorism laws were really about protecting "freedom from" then they would also have a blanket ban on cars, guns, knives, alcohol and tobacco, all of which cause orders of magnitude more harm. Of course bans like that have been historically attempted and populations very clearly told Governments attempting to enforce them in which direction to fuck off to.
But these kind of abuses are a lot easier for people to ignore when they always happen to "someone else" but "probably will never happen to me".
Welcome to life in the UK, where they obviously have been taking Orwell as a user manual, not a warning.
Shame on these mean and undemocratic means to silence inconvenient voices! I think authorities are dumb - they are actually doing quite the opposite!