Viewing 34 posts - 81 through 114 (of 114 total)
  • Abuse of Terror Laws….
  • kimbers
    Full Member

    they said it was very naughty and that theyd be making sure it doesnt happen again

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/08/20/david-miranda-glenn-greenwald-julian-huppert_n_3783956.html

    I think the party has basically imploded already in the sure knowledge of a thumping at the next election

    slowoldgit
    Free Member

    Meanwhile, in the US, Groklaw has shut down with this comment…

    The owner of Lavabit tells us that he’s stopped using email and if we knew what he knew, we’d stop too.

    There is no way to do Groklaw without email. Therein lies the conundrum.

    What to do?

    What to do? I’ve spent the last couple of weeks trying to figure it out. And the conclusion I’ve reached is that there is no way to continue doing Groklaw, not long term, which is incredibly sad.

    ransos
    Free Member

    I’ve not seen any suggestion that he’s a terrorist or has any sympathies. But that’s not the issue.

    Yes it is. The purpose of the legislation is to catch people who may be terrorists, not to harass people who may be in possession of stolen documents.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    mattjg
    Free Member

    The purpose of the legislation is to catch people who may be terrorists

    Got an original source link for that please? I’d like to read it.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Mattjg, there’s an article by L Falconer who was involved in introducing the bill in the Guardian that makes this point but without a link to the legislation itself.

    Good story to watch how the different sides of the media report this!!!

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Got an original source link for that please? I’d like to read it.

    Are your googling skills weak ?

    An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).

    And section 40(1)(b) states :

    40 Terrorist: interpretation.(1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
    (a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
    (b)is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/40

    The purpose of the legislation is to catch people who may be terrorists

    ransos
    Free Member

    Got an original source link for that please? I’d like to read it.

    From the act:

    “An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).”
    (section 40(1)(b))
    “a person who…is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.”

    Taken from http://jackofkent.com/2013/08/nine-hours-in-the-life-of-david-miranda/

    “Unless they are being used for the specified purpose of determining whether the detained person fills the definition of “terrorist” under section 40(1)(b) then the power to detain and question cannot be lawfully used.

    And if that is not the purpose, then the power to search for property to assist in determining whether a person is a terrorist is not triggered, and this in turn means that the power to retain any property for evidence in criminal proceedings is also not triggered.

    In other words, schedule 7 cannot be used as a fishing expedition for property.”

    mattjg
    Free Member

    Thanks, agreed, that seems fairly clear doesn’t it. The police have to make a case now that that’s what they were doing.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    The police have to make a case now that that’s what they were doing.

    I’m guessing they we were told to threaten him by the Home Secretary.

    teamhurtmore
    Free Member

    Anti-terror legislation is a prime area where liberty can and is routinely abused in many countries (torture?) which is why checks and balances are important. It seems (although who knows yet) that the interpretation of the law in this case has been “stretched” to a considerable degree which means that sympathies “should be” (?) with Miranda. But there is something about their behaviour and threats (veiled or otherwise) and TG reporting of the whole issue that makes this less easy than it should be IMO!!!

    kimbers
    Full Member

    apparently clegg was consulted about the arrest before it happened (but sometime after the americans told cameron what they wanted us to do)

    the police will manage to weasle round it – the original legislation is a bit vague, even though its obvious that the police and May are being dishonest in using it that way

    whats the best we can hope for another sham investigation by the useless IPCC? they did f-all in the dememzes investigation

    WackoAK
    Free Member

    Current story on the BBC site about the supervised destruction of Guardian hard drives tells you all you need to know about the utter incompetence of the people who are the supposed experts.

    Agree with kimbers above, I fully expect a sham investigation to be published in a year or so by which time they will have brought in more draconian legislation that’s open to abuse.

    julianwilson
    Free Member

    anyone just have r4 on? Theresa May didn’t really say anything at all did she? It was like listening to the ‘comment’ section of the dail mail read by the home secretary. 😕

    kimbers
    Full Member

    just read the guardian liveblog of it….shes just treading carefully, as she knows the government are on shaky ground

    footflaps
    Full Member

    just read the guardian liveblog of it….shes just treading carefully, as she knows the government are on shaky ground

    They should know better, the Guardian has a pretty good track record of winning in the courts and generally humiliating the government…

    ormondroyd
    Free Member

    The Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has “stolen information that would help terrorism”.

    That seems a reasonable justification to me, from the government’s POV, if my emboldened bit can be backed up.

    Erm, but “this could help terrorism” is such a meaningless and thin statement. Almost anything could arbitrarily to be described as “possibly helping terrorism”.

    It’s a dead easy get-out-clause for a government caught with its pants down on any matter. E.g. when the Telegraph uncovered the expenses documents, I’m sure the government could have concocted an excuse to stop on that story too. “Sorry we arrested your journalist and confiscated your files, but that material contained information on MPs movements and addresses that could help terrorism”

    CountZero
    Full Member

    It’s a dead easy get-out-clause for a government caught with its pants down on any matter. E.g. when the Telegraph uncovered the expenses documents, I’m sure the government could have concocted an excuse to stop on that story too. “Sorry we arrested your journalist and confiscated your files, but that material contained information on MPs movements and addresses that could help terrorism” [list]
    Don’t give them any more ideas! 😉

    just5minutes
    Free Member

    So anyway, turns out that David Miranda was carrying “several thousand” classified documents when he was detained at Heathrow on Sunday – it appears that his detention was a pretty fair cop – the only question for me is why they let him go.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    it appears that his detention was a pretty fair cop

    On the contrary, it appears that his detention was unlawful.

    I suggest you read this article : The detention of David Miranda was an unlawful use of the Terrorism Act

    In the UK the police aren’t allowed to make up the law as they fancy. Thankfully.

    slowoldgit
    Free Member

    So anyway, turns out that David Miranda was carrying “several thousand” classified documents

    Will they be produced in court?

    kimbers
    Full Member

    and those thousands of files included the revelation that the american administration and the president had been repeatedly lying to the public about what they were collecting and that

    and willy hague said we had the strongest checks of systems and balances in the world as regards UK snooping and yet…..
    various companies were ilegally handing over our data to GCHQ

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/aug/02/telecoms-bt-vodafone-cables-gchq

    just5minutes – Member
    the only question for me is why they let him go.

    Im still struggling to see how carrying these makes Miranda a terrorist
    -which is why the Police/ Government let him go, they just ilegally used a terror law to get their hands on the files

    just5minutes
    Free Member

    Oh hangon, the Guardian “article” is by the wise sage “Charlie” Falconer aka
    Baron Falconer of Thoroton, who in a previous life in the Bliar government accidentally overspent several
    Hundred million pounds of our money on the millennium dome and also went to quite some lengths to create the means for public bodies to side step their FOI responsibilities . For me it lost all credibility before the first sentence.

    kimbers
    Full Member

    well as he drafted the law hes in a better position to know than most
    (despite his dubious past)

    doh
    Free Member

    just5minutes – Member
    So anyway, turns out that David Miranda was carrying “several thousand” classified documents when he was detained at Heathrow on Sunday – it appears that his detention was a pretty fair cop – the only question for me is why they let him go.

    ah yes the doc’s that prove illegal,unethical and immoral activities carried out by the government. best to keep quiet about that eh.

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Oh hangon, the Guardian “article” is by the wise sage

    …………. For me it lost all credibility before the first sentence.

    So Charles Falconer QC has no credibility because they overspent on the millennium dome, but the law which he helped to introduce has ? how remarkable.

    And your legal opinion says that Miranda was legally held, are you a barrister ? ……so we can assess how credible your legal opinion is.

    Why did you put the word article in quotation marks btw – is not really an article ?

    just5minutes
    Free Member

    Next time the security services don’t catch 9 people intent on blowing up transatlantic planes we can all give thanks for the likes of the Guardian and Julian Assange exposing the inner workings of how intelligence is gathered and putting the lives of those that work in an admittedly grey area at risk.

    Personally I couldn’t care less if my emails are read and Skype calls are intercepted – the small likelihood of someone looking at my web browsing history of the niner and stw websites or reading order emails from merlin cycles seems like a fair deal if it means that those who would do my friends and family harm are identified and dealt with.

    deadlydarcy
    Free Member

    Ah I see. If you’ve done nothing wrong then I guess…

    ernie_lynch
    Free Member

    Personally I couldn’t care less if ……

    You don’t seem to understand that it’s not about what you want, it’s about how the law stands. And the government and the police cannot act in an unlawful manner. Something which we should be extremely please about, not trying to undermine it as you appear to be doing. The alternative is a society where governments and the police are above the law.

    doh
    Free Member

    just5minutes – Member
    Next time the security services don’t catch 9 people intent on blowing up transatlantic planes we can all give thanks for the likes of the Guardian and Julian Assange exposing the inner workings of how intelligence is gathered and putting the lives of those that work in an admittedly grey area at risk.

    Personally I couldn’t care less if my emails are read and Skype calls are intercepted – the small likelihood of someone looking at my web browsing history of the niner and stw websites or reading order emails from merlin cycles seems like a fair deal if it means that those who would do my friends and family harm are identified and dealt with.

    but the only people we have caught are the ones that screwed up in some way, bomb didn’t go off etc.
    no-one has been caught through this mass data trawl do you really think anyone plotting anything is really on single-terrorist-world chatting about “what bomb for 747’s”

    you may not be bothered about people intercepting your mail etc but where does it stop – excuse me mr 5mins can we come round and check you are not a terrorist when you are not home but if you are at home you won’t mind us looking up your families bums as well because after all if you have nothing to hide….

    zokes
    Free Member

    Next time the security services don’t catch 9 people intent on blowing up transatlantic planes we can all give thanks for the likes of the Guardian and Julian Assange exposing the inner workings of how intelligence is gathered and putting the lives of those that work in an admittedly grey area at risk.

    Just a thought, and I’m aware it’s a mind-blowingly out-of-left-field one, but have the governments actually stopped to think: “why are people trying to blow up our planes”?

    If they investigated that with the same rigour as they seem to want to interrogate their own people, they might actually get somewhere. Especially as the answer is pretty damn simple: we need to stop blowing up other peoples’ countries.

    dekadanse
    Free Member

    All a huge excuse for the creation of a stronger and more repressive/intrusive state to crack down on dissent, deviance and anyone who thinks differently………which of course provokes the problem of ever more resistance, which in turn justifies the ever-stronger state, which…….and so on.

    Tom_W1987
    Free Member

    Personally I couldn’t care less if my emails are read and Skype calls are intercepted – the small likelihood of someone looking at my web browsing history of the niner and stw websites or reading order emails from merlin cycles seems like a fair deal if it means that those who would do my friends and family harm are identified and dealt with.

    The rest of us however who don’t like the idea of a corrupt security service black mailing members of the public, do care.

    ohnohesback
    Free Member

    And what seems to be missed out in this debate is how the SS (Security Services) know that the detainee was a partner of the journalist, and knew of his travel plans. People who are unconcerned about personal information being monitored or held on govt databases and say “well there’s nothing to worry about; how could they use it against me?” now have an example of how that knowledge can be abused.

    ormondroyd
    Free Member

    Personally I couldn’t care less if my emails are read and Skype calls are intercepted – the small likelihood of someone looking at my web browsing history of the niner and stw websites or reading order emails from merlin cycles seems like a fair deal if it means that those who would do my friends and family harm are identified and dealt with.

    First they came for the whistleblowers…

Viewing 34 posts - 81 through 114 (of 114 total)

The topic ‘Abuse of Terror Laws….’ is closed to new replies.