Was the nine-hour detention of David Miranda lawful?

jackofkent.com

10 points·fnordfnordfnord··4 comments

Yes, it was lawful. So is shooting people in the head without due process: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Kratos

Hooray for the rule of law.

The point of confusion here is that people think the terms "terrorism" and "terrorist" only apply to bad guys.

But so far as the government is concerned, "terrorism" is really defined as "doing anything the government doesn't like". If you leak secrets, they'll call you a terrorist. If you KNOW people who leak secrets, you're probably considered to be "aiding terrorists."

"One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" works both ways.

Terrorists are people who instill public fear [of themselves and their present and future actions] as a political tool. Yes, they are "freedom fighters" if you find their reasons noble and "terrorists" if you find them ignoble.

But people who aren't in the public fear business at all are objectively not terrorists, and if the government calls them that then they are arbitrarily redefining words, or as we like to say, "lying".

There is no common objective definition of terrorism. The definition changes all the time. It is arbitrary. And you wouldn't have to tweak, say, the League of Nations definition very much to include Snowden's actions. He is a non-state actor, committed a criminal act, which did have the effect of scaring people, and - the NSA will claim - his actions endangered lives.

eg: "Any willful (criminal) act calculated to endanger the lives of members of the public."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism

Reply on news.ycombinator.com