Definition of Terrorism in Schedule 7 Of UK's Terrorism Act (Miranda's Detention)

[KittyWampus]

From the Act in question:

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.

[Arctic Dave]

1. DERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRPah.

Please explain to us where that applies to the situation?

Oh! You can't?

Well then, you get a F for Failure.

[KittyWampus]

2. What is wrong with you? Schedule 7 is what applies to airports. This is what was used as basis

for detaining Miranda.

[KittyWampus]

4. You sure you don't want to self delete your comment? It makes you look really silly.

[frylock]

15. again, comedy gold!

[KittyWampus]

19. Yes, watching DU'ers unable to process basic relevant info without editorializing added is "funny"

[frylock]

20. keep em coming!

[morningfog]

3. Not sure your point. Do you think Miranda and

Greenwald have engaged in terrorism?

Do you have a link for the full Act?

[KittyWampus]

5. Damn. Have YOU read the law in question yet? You don't get the point in RELEVANT INFORMATION?

[morningfog]

7. How does Miranda or Greenwald's acts meet

the definition of terrorism you just posted? Make the case if you think it does.

[KittyWampus]

12. I am not interesting in making the case for the UK Govt. I POSTED INFORMATION

there is really something wrong here.

Can't you deal with being presented with FACTS?

You need someone to editorialize for you every freaking minute of the day?

[morningfog]

14. So you agree nothing they did meets the definition?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. I don't need anyone to editorialize. I need for YOU to tell ME which PART

of what you posted you believe is relevant. I can't see any relevance with respect to David Miranda, so I'd like to know why you find this snippet compelling enough to post.

[KittyWampus]

21. Why? Why are so many DU'ers unable to simply read BASIC RELEVANT INFO without editorializing?

I am really glad I posted it. It reveals a lot about people and their discomfort reading information that hasn't been pre-digested for them.

I posted this because it is the section of the 2000 Terrorism Act that applies to Miranda's detention yesterday.

THAT WAS MY SOLE INTENT> to provide factual information.

It's like some DU"ers are so used to reading bullshit predigested and regurgitated they can no longer simply process basic primary source info.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

22. No. In my case, I was trying to see if you have a point to make. You do not.

I require nothing further. Thank you.

[MADem]

29. It's not so many, it's just a few, but they need to take some of their snark and turn it on

themselves.

They're so into advocating for their cause that they can't take a chunk of factual information and process it.

Then, they've got to weigh in with childish "derp" and other comments that make 'em look like fools.

It's all good though--their words stand for all to see, their inability to discuss a topic is noted.

[Marr]

26. What you're doing is about an inch from plain old trolling.

You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that you just posted this information completely in a vacuum-- no point, no nothing. Just "here are some words"?

[MADem]

38. What you are doing is making an uncivil accusation. You should be ashamed of yourself. nt

[Marr]

42. You might want to let someone else run for Secretary of Etiquette.

I've seen some of your work.

[MADem]

45. I'm not applying for the job, but you can be sure you'll never get it. nt

[idwiyo]

58. It's incomplete. There are also guidelines that spell out when it should be used, which you either

don't know exist or decided to omit for some reason.

[GeorgeGist]

6. I see nothing there to warrant Miranda's detention.

What am I missing?

[MADem]

40. What I see is a kind of oddball definition for "terrorism." I think this is what was meant when

the newspapers reported this as an "overly broad" law.

[cthulu2016]

8. A shamefuly, disgustingly broad law. Could cover about anything.

Thanks for posting.

[morningfog]

10. It is too broad, but the OP is not very useful.

You can't interpret a statute in pieces. They should have linked to the entire Act. It changes meaning in context. I dont see how even just this definition, though, could apply to Miranda. I have yet to see the argument that does.

[KittyWampus]

13. Knowing the law in question is "not useful"?

[morningfog]

17. A link the law rather than a small portion would be useful.

Link?

[cthulu2016]

30. Very true, re: reading a law n/t

[MADem]

48. The OP is entirely useful, unless you had the law memorized before Miranda was detained.

I had no idea what the law said, or how amorphous it was.

I thought you had me on "Ignore." You made a point of telling me that the other day, IIRC.

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Do you think that Barton Gellman of the Washington Post should be detained?

For that matter, should not all WaPo and Guardian reporters now be detained to protect national security in the US and UK?

Why not just make it a blanket policy to detain ALL investigative journalists and confiscate their electronics?

Also, I am a bit unclear as to why you would post this without giving it any relevance to anything.

[KittyWampus]

16. Because it appears to be the RELEVANT LAW USED TO DETAIN MIRANDA. JFC, do you need editorials

to tell you how to read basic information?

[Vinnie From Indy]

24. Help me out here!

I don't see the relevant part!

[frylock]

25. you're unquestioning support of RELEVANT LAW is why you're labeled an authoritarian

[Marr]

28. +1 /nt

[MADem]

31. What "support" is being offered? Good grief--this thread takes the cake. nt

[Marr]

33. Look two posts down.

The OP claims her point is that the UK has a law that allows them to scoop up anyone they like under the pretext of terrorism. Considering the fact that she has also vehemently defended their detention of Miranda, the point is pretty clear.

[KittyWampus]

35. Two posts down what? I posted a primary fucking source. PERIOD. Can't handle it Marr?

can't make your own conclusions without your little clique helping you a long?

[Marr]

39. What are you freaking out about?

Two posts down you agreed with a poster who, helpfully, guessed at your point since you refused to make one. You agreed with him/her. That point was that the UK has a very broadly worded law that allows them to scoop up just about anyone under the pretext of terrorism.

Is that NOT your point now?

[MADem]

41. You just told me that the OP "supported" the law. No support has been offered.

I think you're being deliberately disruptive and derailing. Shame on you.

It's like you don't want anyone to dissect this law; you want a spoon-fed interpretation presented for all to agree upon.

I think you'd have to be a fucking moron if you read that excerpt and didn't see a lot of wiggle room in it--are you saying you're so damned obtuse that you need THAT fact spoon fed to you?

You--and others on this thread--owe the OP an apology.

What shitty conduct.

[Marr]

44. So all those posts about how detaining Miranda was the right move... I just imagined those?

Again, the OP has repeatedly defended the detention of Miranda. Here she states that his detention was perfectly legal under the UK's definition of 'terrorist'. I'd say her position is pretty clear.

[MADem]

50. You're making assumptions not in evidence.

You're saying that if the OP favored detention, that the "reason" was this law, and not that Miranda was transporting stolen material, or any other reason.

Instead of asking, you're assuming.

And where the hell do you get "Here she states that his detention was perfectly legal...?"

I don't see any statement to that effect in this thread. All she "states" is that this is the law they used.

You aren't entitled to invent what people have said. It's not stopping you, though.

I see a posting of a law I hadn't, to this point, read. I find it interesting that a "terrorism" law doesn't have a lot of terrorism in it.

Rude as all hell--you and others on this thread. This kind of shit makes DU really suck.

[idwiyo]

56. It's debatable if it was legal, given the code of practice for officers using the Terrorism Act.

Of course OP wisely decided to draw attention to the law and ignore the guidelines.

http://content.met.police.uk/cs/Satellite?blobcol=urldata&blobheadername1=Content-Type&blobheadername2=Content-Disposition&blobheadervalue1=application%2Fpdf&blobheadervalue2=inline%3B+filename%3D%22436%2F865%2FPractice_Advice_on_Stop_and_Search.pdf%22&blobkey=id&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobwhere=1283565271771&ssbinary=true

PRACTICE ADVICE ON STOP AND SEARCH

Schedule 7 powers are to be used solely for the purpose of ascertaining if the person examined is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The powers must not be used to stop and question persons for any other purpose. An examination must cease and the examinee must be informed that it has ended once it has been ascertained that the person examined does not appear to be or to have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.

More here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3495703

[MADem]

59. The definition of an "act of terrorism" is so vague, though, that scowling at the Queen

in a dire fashion might qualify. That's what the info in the OP reveals. I mean, what the hell is this?

(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and

Ferrying materials for a crew that says "I'm gonna reveal all kinds of damaging intelligence about you and all your friends" sounds like it would fit into that "use or threat to intimidate" piece to me.

You could slap your own interpretation on ANY behavior, and make it fit.

Once we establish that pretty much any behavior, in the right light, could be construed as terrorism, then it's an easy journey to saying "Well, since that behavior falls under the 'terrorism' definition, we're justified in stopping this guy."

It's a closed loop.

I think that is what the OP reveals.

[MADem]

36. Barton Gellman works in the UK? Who knew? Isn't this British law?

I think the poster's only purpose was to offer up the piece that explains--as many of us wondered--how and why the UK would or could use what is termed a "terrorism" law to hold Miranda. I think that's ALL that was being presented.

Yet plenty of people here are going off the rails for no damn reason.

This thread sure is instructive, not just in learning what the UK law actually said, but in the crazed, foaming-at-the-mouth reactions to the OP.

This is unbelievable.

[quinnox]

11. Yea, the UK has a ridiculous terror law which allows them to scoop up people

and question them for just about any reason they can make up. What is your point, besides that you are obviously a fan of this law? (as authoritarian-minded as you have shown)

And by the way, there is an uproar going on in the UK right now over this law and its abuses, maybe you missed those news stories as well.

[KittyWampus]

23. Well, thanks for reading the info and making your own decision. It appears a number of DU'ers are

incapable of doing so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

27. It confirms there's no way you can say Miranda was connected with terrorism

but that's what we thought already. So it's not really that surprising. What did you expect as a response?

[MADem]

32. How are you coming to that conclusion? Why are you being so rude?

Where do you get the "obviously a fan" determination from? Followed up with the hackneyed, I-got-nuthin' "authoritarian" insult?

If I tell you that the USA still has a death penalty, does that make me a "fan" because I impart that information?

You and quite a few others on this thread are behaving like a pack of rabid dogs--it's really not a pretty thing to see.

[Marr]

34. If you repeatedly cheer for an execution, then explain it away by saying,

'hey, they have the death penalty there', then yes-- that would pretty obviously make you a fan.

[KittyWampus]

37. I didn't "explain" anything. I posted a primary source.

[MADem]

43. That's absurd.

I'll wager not a single "fan" -- and that is how some people are behaving, like rabid, asshole fans-- on either side of this debate knew what the law said. I think most people were thinking "terrorist=Osama, IRA, abortion clinic bomber"--that kind of thing.

This law shows everyone that there's a lot of wiggle room in the definitions. For finding and clipping out the relevant--and yes, it IS relevant--bit that the London Metropolitan Police used to hang their justification upon, you and a few others went off the fucking rails and behaved very poorly indeed.

I'm amazed at this Lord of The Flies Moment on DU. It's just uncalled for.

[KittyWampus]

46. Reading the law it seems we ALL would agree there is way too much wiggle room.

And I am really very glad i just posted the primary info with no comment.

It's very illustrative.

[MADem]

51. It most certainly is.

Not DU's finest hour, not by a long shot.

Like I said, Lord of the fucking Flies....!

Damn!

[treestar]

55. So just quoting it makes you a fan of it?

This sounds like you want to hide from reality.

[Savannahmann]

47. Thank you Kitty

This certainly proves that the act was abused in detaining Miranda. I agree with you wholeheartedly that they simply don't have a leg to stand on.

[KittyWampus]

49. it seems the laws in the UK are overly broad as they are in the USA.

she says at the bottom of the thread. LOL!

[idwiyo]

52. And? Even though it's overly broad law it was streched beyond limit in Mr Miranda's arrest,

see here for more info:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3495703

[rhett o rick]

53. Are you trying to make a point or is that a public service post?

Why didnt you include your argument? Which section justifies the detention of Miranda?

[treestar]

54. 2(d)

It does seem Glenn and company really don't care what danger they may be unleashing on the public. We are just to assume that the entire security apparatus is useless and just to keep tabs on us. As if there really were no real terrorists.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

57. Looks like the CIA "How To" manual.