Search Mailing List Archives


Limit search to: Subject & Body Subject Author
Sort by: Reverse Sort
Limit to: All This Week Last Week This Month Last Month
Select Date Range     through    

[liberationtech] Open Letter To US Customs

teamcoltra at gmail.com teamcoltra at gmail.com
Thu Sep 5 21:33:29 PDT 2013


While I am not sure what you two are getting at,I think I should clear up
the fact that I am a citizen of the United States... And this happened on
us soil

Travis McCrea +1(206)552•8728
Pirate Party of Canada
The Ultimate Ebook Library

sorry for inappropriate words which may get injected into my email as it is
being sent from my mobile.
On Sep 5, 2013 8:26 PM, "Maxim Kammerer" <mk at dee.su> wrote:

> 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
> obvious replies.
>
> > 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
> of terrorism."
> [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.
>
> [1] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
> [2] http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/40
>
> --
> Maxim Kammerer
> Liberté Linux: http://dee.su/liberte
> --
> Liberationtech is a public list whose archives are searchable on Google.
> Violations of list guidelines will get you moderated:
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech.
> Unsubscribe, change to digest, or change password by emailing moderator at
> companys at stanford.edu.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20130906/25ac938c/attachment.html>


More information about the liberationtech mailing list