The disgraceful judges of Britain’s High Court – who have gone along with torture, extraordinary rendition, every single argument for mass surveillance and hiding information from the public, and even secret courts – have ruled that it was lawful for the Home Office to detain David Miranda, a journalist as information he was carrying might in some undefined way, and if communicated to them, aid “terrorists”.
Despite the entire industry, both private and governmental, devoted to whipping up fear, it is plain to pretty well everyone by now that terrorism is about the most unlikely way for you to die. A car accident is many hundreds of times more likely. Even drowning in your own bath is more likely. Where is the massive industry of suppression against baths?
I had dinner inside the Ecuadorian Embassy on Sunday with Julian Assange, who I am happy to say is as fit and well as possible in circumstances of confinement. Amongst those present was Jesselyn Radack, attorney for, among others, Edward Snowden. Last week on entering the UK she was pulled over by immigration and interrogated about her clients. The supposed “immigration officer” already knew who are Jesselyn Radack’s clients. He insisted aggressively on referring repeatedly to Chelsea Manning as a criminal, to which Jesselyn quietly replied that he was a political prisoner. But even were we to accept the “immigration officer’s” assertion, the fact that an attorney defends those facing criminal charges is neither new nor until now considered reprehensible and illegitimate.
As various states slide towards totalitarianism, a defining factor is that their populations really don’t notice. Well, I have noticed. Have you?
“Drone victims are today lodging a complaint with the International Criminal Court (ICC) accusing NATO member states of war crimes over their role in facilitating the US’ covert drone programme in Pakistan.”
http://www.reprieve.org.uk/press/2014_02_19_complaint_international_court_drones/
Hi Craig,
Nice to hear Julian Assange is bearing up in the Ecuadorian embassy. Must have been a very interesting chat, all youse Sam Adams types around the same table.
Meanwhile, the debate in Sweden over whether the Swedish prosecutor should be sacked for refusing to interrogate Assange in London is hotting up:
Nordic News Network 3/1/14: Mounting Criticism of Swedish Prosecution in Assange case:
http://www.nnn.se/nordic/assange/critics.pdf
Sverige Radio 4/1/14: Most of Eric Holder’s visit has been kept secret:
“Our political reporter Ci Holmgren had to ask the Swedish Minister of Justice what Holder really doing here.”:
https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=1637&artikel=5775707
Expressen 4/1/14: Holder’s speech is not likely to have calmed Assange:
http://www.expressen.se/kronikorer/mats-larsson/holders-tal-lar-inte-ha-lugnat-assange/
SvD 11/2/14: Assange should be treated according to Swedish law:
http://www.svd.se/opinion/brannpunkt/assange-should-be-treated-according-to-swedish-law_8982528.svd
Paragraf 13/2/14: Not so little fishy [Google translated]:
http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.magasinetparagraf.se%2Fbilden%2Finte-sa-lite-skumt
Dagens Juridik 18/2/14: The prosecution has painted itself into a corner with no honorable return:
http://www.dagensjuridik.se/2014/02/assange-sarbehandlas-negativt
Last one translated: http://rixstep.com/1/20140219,00.shtml
Thanks, Glenn-uk
Not nit-picking but just a couple of (genuine) queries about your latest.
“I’d argue it’s definitely used against a group,..”
By “group”, are you speaking generically, ie do you mean a segment of the public or are you referring to specific groups, eg muggers, or demonstrators?
“If it were only used as evidence to prosecute law-breakers, we would not have many concerns.”
You appear to be suggesting it is also used for other purposes. What do you have in mind?
Re. your China example : that was interesting and certainly gives the state a strong hold over everyone, or almost. But the example depends on the existence of the “notify when moving between areas” law and, presumbaly, other laws of that type. Now, for your example to be transposable to the UK, you would have to find examples of similar laws – or laws with similar intent – in the UK. Do you have any?…..
…..unless you mean the panonply of UK anti-terrorism laws…? (it’s not clear to me from your text).
On the photo-ing question : I’d find it difficult to believe that the section you refer to is used to justify an order not to take photos at a demonstration. Now, I agree that you could be arrested and then not charged, but can you refer to any cases of this kind where charges were brought and the matter came to court?
And, finally, thank you for the courteous way in which you set out your thoughts.
“So when “a foreign exchange trader” jumped to his death from the top of JP Morgan’s Hong Kong headquarters this morning, that definitely raised my eyebrows.”
http://www.wallstreetsectorselector.com/2014/02/trail-dead-bankers-lead-somewhere/
Arbed
You’re straying perilously near off-topic as well….
Clark
thanks for that on photos, I hadn’t seen it when I replied to Glenn-uk.
“Perhaps Snowden could take it up with his lawyer, who is also on the KGB supervisory board and is a friend of Putins, or Craig could raise it next time he is on Voice of Russia, or Assange in one of his independent programmes on Russia today? Or perhaps everyone here could write a letter to the Russian Ambassador.”
Contrariwise, the effort to place Snowden and Vitishko at opposite poles is a conservative gambit without any realistic odds of winning.
Have you considered that their goals could be in unison? I doubt it.
“You’re straying perilously near off-topic as well….”
Pot/Kettle
Habbabkuk, 11.35pm
Excuse me? Let me quote from Craig’s post:
Presumably you’re aware that the dinner at the Ecuadorian embassy was for the Sam Adams group (it’s been all over the news…); that the Sam Adams group were meeting at the embassy ahead of the award of this year’s Sam Adams Prize to Chelsea Manning at the Oxford Union this very evening, with Craig one of the speakers there (I do hope you’ll post the video when it’s available, Craig); that Jesselyn Radack was questioned at Heathrow Border Control – though not quite as fiercely as David Miranda (also very topical this evening) – about her intended destination (guess where? Yes, that’s right, the Ecuadorian embassy to meet up with Assange and Craig); and that Julian Assange is a previous winner of said prize.
Quite rare for me to be this on-topic, actually. 😉
“GP magazine Pulse reported on 7/2/14, “Patients who have opted out of the scheme will still have their records sent to the HSCIC stripped of identifiers” (see 4th paragraph from bottom of this article). This confirms something buried on page 9 of NHS England’s recently-published care.data Privacy Impact Assessment [PDF] (UPDATE 12/2/14: there appeares to be a problem with the official link to the PIA, so here is a copy), which states:”
http://medconfidential.org/how-to-opt-out/
“Amerikan Stasi Police State Staring Us In The Face — Paul Craig Roberts”
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/02/18/19371/
The judgment in full is here-
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/miranda-v-sofshd.pdf
A couple of comments- our learned friends acknowledge an earlier judgment which states, alarmingly,that under the 2000 Act ‘the definition of ‘terrorism’ was indeed intended to be very wide.’
But, heigh ho, they go on in the next paragraph (para 29) to state-
With great respect, the bare proposition that the definition of terrorism in s.1 is very wide or far reaching does not of itself instruct us very deeply in the proper use of
Schedule 7.’
How convenient !
Our learned friends also make repeated references to ‘the theft of 58,000 GCGQ documents’ and to ‘stolen GCHQ intelligence’.
Are we therefore to assume, in the light of this statement alleging ‘theft’ on the part of Miranda & Greenwald, that these documents are no longer in GCHQ’s possession ?
The fictional Mr Justice Cocklecarrot’s legal reasoning skills bear favourable comparison to these 3 hacks in the High Court.
Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7 now licenses the UK securicrats to embark on fishing expeditions-
http://www.article19.org/resources.php/resource/37465/en/uk:-miranda-ruling-fails-to-protect-public-interest-journalism
Btw I meant to write ‘bear favourable comparison to those of these 3 hacks in the High Court’ in the previous post.
Chelsea Manning: Sam Adams Award Acceptance Speech, Feb 2014
http://pastebin.com/igpXK26G
On the day of the seriously dodgy Miranda judgment , how timely it is that, simultaneously, the grubby machinations of our political elite and the Murdoch press, are revealed in their full glory-
http://fothom.wordpress.com/2014/02/19/the-brooks-plan-b-and-blair-unofficial-advisor-emails/
“Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson on Wednesday ordered the cancellation of a plan by the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency to develop a national license-plate tracking system after privacy advocates raised concern about the initiative.
“The order came just days after ICE solicited proposals from companies to compile a database of license-plate information from commercial and law enforcement tag readers. Officials said the database was intended to help apprehend fugitive illegal immigrants, but the plan raised concerns that the movements of ordinary citizens under no criminal suspicion could be scrutinized.”
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014732685
Sections 44, 45, 46 and most of section 47 of the 2000 anti-terror act were repealed by a Remedial Act in 2011 having been declared illegal by the ECHR.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/terrorism-act-2000-remedial-order-2011
Police officers do not have any right to prevent anyone taking photographs in a public place neither can they delete images without a court order.
Kempe, 1:09 am; thanks for that good news. It’s a shame it required the ECHR to overrule those oppressive British laws.
Someone @ 11;58 ..Good one….
I was reading that from a site i visit from time to time…they (Activist Post) are running this Story too.
http://www.activistpost.com/2014/02/amerikan-stasi-police-state-staring-us.html
they A.P have been onto the goings on in Fema Region 3 for many months….
i’m with Clark, and some others Here… when he talks of trying to tell friends what is going on… many of my bunch just don’t want to know…or care.
Some lines from Someone’s link if i may… worth repeating Ye know.
“The Army is being trained for domestic police duties that are in violation of the Posse Comitatus Act that prevents the use of the military for domestic law enforcement, another indication that Washington has no respect for the country’s laws and that Obama and his “Justice” Department have no intention of enforcing the laws of the land or abiding by the Constitution.
Where is the media outcry? Where are the law schools? Where is Congress? A government that disregards the laws of the land is both treasonous and tyrannical. Yet, not a peep from “the free and the brave.”
The US government and its puppet auxiliary, the UK government, have turned with vengeance against whistleblowers and their attorneys. Bradley Manning is in prison, Julian Assange is confined to the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, and Edward Snowden is under Russian protection from a tyrannical US government. Jessellyn Radack, an attorney who represented Snowden was recently detained and questioned in an intimidating way at London’s Heathrow Airport. Washington has taught its British puppet state how to mimic Washington’s Gestapo ways…..
“Julian Assange stated, correctly, “The NSA and its UK accomplices show no respect for the rule of law.” ……
“What has occurred in the US and UK is that the criminal and treasonous acts of both governments have become so extreme that the governments must destroy civil liberty in order to protect themselves from exposure. Whenever you hear “national security” invoked, you know that government is covering up its crimes and its lies…..
“Meanwhile Washington continues the pretense of America as the land of “freedom and democracy” and “concern for human rights,” blah-blah-blah. People all over the world, with the exception of the paid protesters in western Ukraine, are no longer listening to the bullshit flowing from Washington and its presstitute media.”
Link @
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/
Thank you Someone
Craig,
I salute you.
However, my legal career encompasses two death threats and one indication that arson could be inflicted on my home ( i.e. I came home to find electrical cords pulled out of the wall and stripped and fully exposed – well – yes – you can burn my house down – I got the message.)
All we can do is resist and hope that the threats are not carried out – or – maybe if they are – we have already informed more of us to carry on and resist.
ALUTA CONTINUA!
CB
Courtenay
Stay safe out there…wee hero’s both yirself and Craig… And Brave ( i strongly Suspect that Craig has Many unsung hero’s as part of his readership… to each n all Thank you.
Yeah, I’ve noticed. My guess is that totalitarianism requires a disguise, and the nature of the disguise doesn’t especially matter. So it can be a charismatic Caesar, it can be ultra-nationalism, Nazism, Italiian Facism, Communism, whatever. It’s still the same old lunatics seeking power and domination. The current disguise is more subtle, and it has to be because the average citizen is far better educated. And the present disguise is managerialism, in my humbe opinion.
In the workplace, I’ve been subjected to bullying managerialism – it’s my way or the highway dickwaving, and is often about ego, and almost every disagreement is personalized, subverted into a challenge to authority. Ditto our current parliamentary system. It’s us and them, and they don’t like us. Any protest is viewed as ‘anti democratic”, and any differing opinion is viewed as ‘extremism’. The language politicians use is leader-speak, and preachy, carefully couched in terms which suggest they know best, and disagreement is silly. It’s pathetic, sure, but also increasingly sinister. In their own minds, they no longer serve the people, they rule, and I’m far from the first to make this observation, I just think it’s becoming more obvious, and extreme.
Monbiot wrote a dreadful article recently, linking Orwell to Al Nusra in Libya. I don’t want to discuss the article, which was a bit poor. But the article noted that Orwell might have gotten 2 years in prison, on his return from fighting in Spain. I took a minute to note on CiF, and now here, that these days you can get a bigger sentence for … a FACEBOOK POST. Check the Google, people have in point of fact gotten more for incitment on Facebook. This is actually genuinely disturbing. We’re talking a few posts, maybe organizing a meeting, here. I know JS Mill talked about incitment of a rioting mob being a crime, but I’m really not sure this has much to do with a stupid Facebook post. For one, how many people actually read this post? Also. Facebook post. I mean, really.
So, yes, the signs are there, have been for a few years now I think. And I’m afraid our judiciary, as well as The Met, appear to be corrupt institutions, who won’t be able to help us, if things truly go awry, for example during a financial collapse which, I fear, looks inevitable.
Perhaps I am being too gloomy, who knows? But i read the newspapers every day, and have to say, it’s hard to be sunny, for sure.
Some interesting links above; thanks. This site is a good place to find references for other sources for eg I only heard about Peter Dale Scott from reading these pages. I thought TB’s alleged comments, attributed to him by RB to JM, on topic and sufficient to suggest a tipping point. The fact that only Habba also notes their relevance perhaps I am wrong and that peeps are even more sleepy than I had thought, or perhaps you had all concluded Hutton was a ‘whitewash’ long ago. When Reuters use that word for a sub headline though you have to think Hello can I hear something ……Have a nice day all.
Dreoilin
I suspect the reason for the moderation alert is to protect the blog from legal action under new blog legislation which came out in January. Yesterday your friend Mary linked to: http://spyblog.org.uk/ and there is an article there which may be relevant.
Defamation Act 2013 comes into force 1st Jan 2014 – section 5 Notice threat to anonymous blogging
At the risk of repeating myself, I give the link to
Milton Mayer’s They Thought They Were Free.
The Germans 1933 -1945
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html
“Your friend the baker was right,” said my colleague. “The dictatorship, and the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting. It provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway. I do not speak of your ‘little men,’ your baker and so on; I speak of my colleagues and myself, learned men, mind you. Most of us did not want to think about fundamental things and never had. There was no need to. Nazism gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about—we were decent people—and kept us so busy with continuous changes and ‘crises’ and so fascinated, yes, fascinated, by the machinations of the ‘national enemies,’ without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. Unconsciously, I suppose, we were grateful. Who wants to think?
“To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it—please try to believe me—unless one has a much greater degree of political awareness, acuity, than most of us had ever had occasion to develop. Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, ‘regretted,’ that, unless one were detached from the whole process from the beginning, unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these ‘little measures’ that no ‘patriotic German’ could resent must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. One day it is over his head.’
There are many parallels.
Clark / Kempe
To Clark, thank you for the 3 links you provided (on which more below)
To Kempe, thanks for that update.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re Clark’s links:
I looked at these and must say that even without the benefit of Kempe’s updare I didn’t find them very convincing.
The 3rd one is about the USA , not the UK (hence not of great value).
The 2nd one concerns someone video-ing (or photo-ing) at the scene of a crime. Nothing happened to him or his pictures (he was even able to openly record and film his discussion with the two police officers) and the explanation given for why he was asked to give his ‘details’, ie name and address, was that the crime unit had not yet arrived on the scene and that which he was filming was evidence of which the police might wish to avail themselves. In other words, a reasonable enough explanation, it seems to me.
The first one (a Guardian article) actually indirectly confirms what Kempe brought to our attention : towards the end of the article a high-ranking police officer confirms that Article 44 does NOT make the taking of photos on the street, eg at a demonstration, illegal. The article also, by the way, makes it clear that there is a need for better educating the policeman on the ground on the correct application of the (complicated) Terrorism Acts.
I wish everyone a nice day and shall continue to endeavor to stay on-topic.
‘An answer may come in how people respond to RB’s comments about TB advising on holding a Hutton type enquiry. Gob smacking if it is proved he said it and if people still do not find that their confidence in the system is shaken well then presumably you have to conclude that they deserve the system they get.’
In fairness, that isn’t the system, but people (allegedly, m’lud, allegedly) operating slightly outside it. That News International’s activities are the subject of court proceedings confirms that while the system demands unlimited surveillance rights over the public, it can still question private snooping. I don’t see booking Brooks as totalitarianism. I do see grabbing Miranda under an irrelevant Act as a symptom of totalitarianism. But maybe that isn’t your point…
Blair was (allegedly) offering to act as a private advisor, that is, not as a representative of the State. He has considerable form with Murdoch, who switched his allegiance to help give him the 1998 election. He may owe Rupert a favour or two; Rupe undoubtedly knows where the bodies of his victims are buried. Blair tours the world in a charter jet selling his influence to anyone who can pay – it’s his modus operandi, but it’s not totalitarianism. If it came to court, it would be corruption, and while its extent is worrying, it’s nothing new in British politics.
Why do I foul up on the formatting?! Answers on a postcard please.
Brendan “Yeah, I’ve noticed. My guess is that totalitarianism requires a disguise, and the nature of the disguise doesn’t especially matter. So it can be a charismatic Caesar, it can be ultra-nationalism, Nazism, Italiian Facism, Communism, whatever. It’s still the same old lunatics seeking power and domination. The current disguise is more subtle, and it has to be because the average citizen is far better educated. And the present disguise is managerialism, in my humbe opinion.
In the workplace, I’ve been subjected to bullying managerialism – it’s my way or the highway dickwaving, and is often about ego, and almost every disagreement is personalized, subverted into a challenge to authority.”
An eloquent description of modern management style. However, if you look at the puppetmasters behind the puppets, i.e.the big political, Masonic screws being crushed into the managers as Craig describes in his post comment, you will see that the manager/puppets, apart from being well-paid, are often very patient, humble individuals who are themselves being very seriously abused.
Craig, thanks once again for raising one of the biggest problems facing society today. Why people are so complacent is beyond me. It’s the “I’m all right Jack” society that cares for nothing and nobody except their own comfort, watching television and getting fat. Gradually people are being indoctrinated in a media-led onslaught which makes it impossible for them to see beyond the cloud-screen.
KingofWelshNoir, welcome back. I found it rather ironic that you make your first comment in months that I’ve seen, and Phil (where did he come from?) and people who regularly comment, Dreoilin, attack you for relentlessly hanging around here. While I agree that we should be doing more in way of protest, and I am sure that they were not targeting you KingofWelshNoir it made me smile. Please don’t take offence.
Courtney, stay safe.
Arbed thanks for all the links.