Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Denzil_DC

(7,188 posts)
7. Are you an inquisitor? LOL Get over yourself.
Sun Aug 18, 2013, 08:56 PM
Aug 2013

And there was no snark in my reply to you. I'm deadly serious. As it is, you've butted in to my reply to the OP, and you're not adding much of worth to the discussion as far as I can see except taking it into personal territory which isn't going to illuminate anything for anyone.

The law Miranda was detained under, the Terrorism Act 2000, hinges on a long-controversial and wide-ranging definition of terrorism:

Section 1. –

(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-

(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation][2] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial][3] or ideological cause.

(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-

(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.



It's been used as a handy way to detain people over the years where other laws they may be subject to don't allow such a long period of detention without charge. If they'd been really going for it and thought they could make it stand up, they could have detained him for up to 14 days without charge under the Terrorism Act 2006 (it was 28 days till 2011).

I've no idea what the authorities were thinking, but given the visit to Poitras and the intended return to her collaborator Greenwald, I'd guess they might cite that he was under suspicion of contravening subsection (2)(e), or maybe even try a stretch and go for paras (2)(c) and (d).
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»To DUers who are residing...»Reply #7