3 ms·

David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists, to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel. Also to not answe

David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists, to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel. Also to not answer questions would land him in prison. So... it's not hyperbolic at all to say that journalism is equated with terrorism, because the state us using laws designed for use against terrorists against journalists. Wake up.

hahainternet 13y ago
> David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists Incorrect, it is applicable to all travellers entering the United Kingdom > to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel Incorrect, he refused counsel. > Also to not answer questions would land him in prison. There's no real evidence of this, there is a 'must not interfere' clause but it has never been tested. > So... it's not hyperbolic at all to say that journalism is equated with terrorism, because the state us using laws designed for use against terrorists against journalists. > Wake up. Could you use more of a cliché? It's hyperbole, you have just proven as much by your complete ignorance on the subject.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Incorrect, he refused counsel. If you aren't permitted counsel of your choice (and he wasn't) but only counsel selected by the police (which he was offered), then you are effectively denied counsel.
  - hahainternet 13y ago
    What total nonsense. You may as well claim duty solicitors are in the palm of the Police.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > You may as well claim duty solicitors are in the palm of the Police. While there is still a potential agency problem, duty solicitors (or, in American parlance, public defenders) aren't an alternative to counsel of choice, they exist to provide the choice to have some counsel to people who otherwise would have none, without denying them the choice of securing any of their own to the extent they can. Providing the option of a duty solicitor is not, then, at all the same as denying someone access to willing counsel of their choice.
dragonwriter 13y ago
> David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists It was written for use against terrorism, not against terrorists. It is notable because it doesn't require any suspicion that the target actually is a terrorist. So targeting a journalist under it isn't equating journalism with terrorism, because it is not, and never has been, a requirement of the law that the police have any basis to think you are a terrorist to target you under the law.

hahainternet 13y ago

> David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists Incorrect, it is applicable to all travellers entering the United Kingdom > to detain them in airports for up to nine hours without counsel Incorrect, he refused counsel. > Also to not answer questions would land him in prison. There's no real evidence of this, there is a 'must not interfere' clause but it has never been tested. > So... it's not hyperbolic at all to say that journalism is equated with terrorism, because the state us using laws designed for use against terrorists against journalists. > Wake up. Could you use more of a cliché? It's hyperbole, you have just proven as much by your complete ignorance on the subject.

dragonwriter 13y ago
> Incorrect, he refused counsel. If you aren't permitted counsel of your choice (and he wasn't) but only counsel selected by the police (which he was offered), then you are effectively denied counsel.
- hahainternet 13y ago
  What total nonsense. You may as well claim duty solicitors are in the palm of the Police.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > You may as well claim duty solicitors are in the palm of the Police. While there is still a potential agency problem, duty solicitors (or, in American parlance, public defenders) aren't an alternative to counsel of choice, they exist to provide the choice to have some counsel to people who otherwise would have none, without denying them the choice of securing any of their own to the extent they can. Providing the option of a duty solicitor is not, then, at all the same as denying someone access to willing counsel of their choice.

dragonwriter 13y ago

> David was detained using a law explicitly written for use against terrorists It was written for use against terrorism, not against terrorists. It is notable because it doesn't require any suspicion that the target actually is a terrorist. So targeting a journalist under it isn't equating journalism with terrorism, because it is not, and never has been, a requirement of the law that the police have any basis to think you are a terrorist to target you under the law.