Search Mailing List Archives
[liberationtech] Open Letter To US Customs
mk at dee.su
Thu Sep 5 17:25:18 PDT 2013
On Fri, Sep 6, 2013 at 2:06 AM, Andy Isaacson <adi at hexapodia.org> wrote:
> Miranda was a very different scenario than the Canadian PP case.
> Confusing them is ... confusing. US vs UK, immigration vs transit, and
> investigation vs political questioning.
There is no such thing as "political questioning" wrt. detentions above.
> So yes, I'd agree you should understand the relevant laws better if you
> want to understand...
That was a figure of speech - I actually meant for someone who knows
the subject to explain whether remaining silent is a viable strategy
or not in such cases. I didn't suggest for bored people to write
> Miranda was held under a law which appears to make it a separate crime
> to refuse to answer the questions.
If you take what journalists write for granted, perhaps.
[1, 18(2)]: "A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph shall
be liable on summary conviction to— (a) imprisonment for a term not
exceeding three months, (b) a fine not exceeding level 4 on the
standard scale, or (c) both."
[1, 2(1)]: "An examining officer may question a person to whom this
paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to
be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)."
[2, 40(1)(b)]: "“terrorist” means a person who— [...] (b) is or has
been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts
[1, 5(a)]: "A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must—
(a) give the examining officer any information in his possession which
the officer requests"
So in UK, it could be fine to ignore or answer with: "I do not have
such information in my possession" or "I am not a terrorist" to any
but simplest questions.
> This has nothing to do with the linked article.
That's why I referred to a "common theme", please pay attention next time.
Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
More information about the liberationtech