Monday, August 19, 2013

I can't wait...

I can't wait to write a defense of the People's Revolutionary Court that tries supercilious-yet-sycophantic media toadies like Michael Grunwald and condemns the whole lot of 'em to spend the rest of their lives doing grueling labor in the hot sun and in freezing cold, eating burned beans and sleeping in blankets infested with fire ants.

And I speak as one who recently became extremely ticked off at Assange for his pro-Libertarian statements.

By the way: Greenwald has vowed to make the UK pay for what it did. Go for it, GG!
Well, Grunwald is definitely a douche. The initial tweet was bad enough, calling for a drone strike on Assange. But then this:

"While I'm on the uncaring kick: I don't even get why I'm SUPPOSED to care about the American we iced in Yemen. He was Al Qaeda!"

Why should we care? Because that American who got 'iced' [Grunwald must identify with the Sopranos--the word is murdered and/or assassinated] was an American citizen. If due process doesn't apply to the worst of us, it applies to none of us. If you don't 'get' that, you don't get anything. Try this, it's unConstitutional. American citizens are guaranteed due process by Law. There's no little footnote that says: with the exception of Al Qeada members.

What the hell is wrong with these people?? Have they all had lobotomies? Or have the Pod People taken over?

I never cease to be appalled.

A month before the detention of David Miranda The Guardian offices were visited by UK security officials. They demanded to be provided with all material the newspaper held on Snowden, then they went down to the basement and physically destroyed hard drives. The Guardian editor is Alan Rusbridger.

"Rusbridger said that in meetings with British officials before the computers were destroyed, he told them the Guardian could not do its journalistic duty if it gave in to the government's requests.

In response, he wrote, a government official told him that the newspaper had already achieved the aim of sparking a debate on government surveillance. "You've had your debate. There's no need to write any more," the unnamed official was quoted as saying."

The Guardian has since determined to conduct its journalistic efforts on these issues from offshore locations outside UK jurisdiction.

Regarding Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, media comment - including by professional dissidents - is obscuring what should be the point, as usual.

That Schedule allows police and other officials to detain someone in a British port area for up to 9 hours without having any suspicion of anything. Section 2(4):

"An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).

(Section 40(1) provides a definition of "terrorist".)

Section 5 states that a person being questioned

"must (...) give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests" (my emphasis).

Clearly if someone doesn't hand over their computer or other electronic device, the interrogators can just grab it.

But here's my question: does the obligation to provide requested information extend to information that is only in the detained person's head?

If it does, then what happens if the person refuses? What's the penalty? No penalty is specified in the Act.

Note that a British citizen has a right under international law to enter Britain. If you're British, they can't stop you entering the country.

So say you sit there for 9 hours. They grab your computer, but you don't answer any questions. What happens?

They 'must' then let you into the country - either under arrest, if they've got proper grounds for arresting you, or free.

I know this doesn't apply to David Miranda.

But in his case, as a foreigner, what would have happened if he refused to tell the motherfuckers his passwords?

I'd be very interested to hear some legal eagle's comments here.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is 

powered by Blogger. 

Isn't yours?