boingboing — 2014-02-20T15:59:31-05:00 — #1
jandrese — 2014-02-20T16:07:52-05:00 — #2
Condemn? I think the administration is trying to figure out how to apply this locally right now.
miramon — 2014-02-20T16:10:12-05:00 — #3
Hell itself will be experiencing a "chilling effect" before the US condemns the UK for harassing someone associated with a US whistleblower.
newliminted — 2014-02-20T16:20:42-05:00 — #4
There's that headline rule in action again!
But it can be forced to take a stance one way or the other, or at least to address it...
ffabian — 2014-02-20T16:21:00-05:00 — #5
If they do that they have to condemn themselves - just ask Jacob Applebaum.
When do the Brits vote themselves out of the EU? Can't wait. Constantly complaining about "undemocratic Brussels" all the while building a police state - we don't need that.
crenquis — 2014-02-20T16:27:44-05:00 — #6
Hey, @StateDeptPress, are you still there?
Are y'all taking notes and modifying procedures to align with the UK's stance or are you going to denounce their tinpot republic actions against journalists?
gilbertwham — 2014-02-20T16:30:37-05:00 — #7
brunel — 2014-02-20T16:36:23-05:00 — #8
We're not a republic. Oh but I wish we were though. We're a damned constitutional monarchy and the tinpot pejorative gets more apt daily.
anansi133 — 2014-02-20T16:37:02-05:00 — #9
There's a very clear logic going on here: "...influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause...."
History is over. The good guys prevailed. Any attempt to upset this hard won victory must be seen as enemy action.
This obsession with the perfect status quo is epitomized by Kragl in The Lego Movie. Another antagonist that comes to mind is V'ger from the long ago ST:TMP. You either have to support the good guys, or become an enemy of the state.
aloisius — 2014-02-20T16:42:34-05:00 — #10
It is pretty clear that "terrorism" no longer means anything. I suggest we start using the term to refer to every person and crime that really would be covered under the broad definition by the UK to further reduce its power so that politicians can't use it as a scare tactic to pass draconian laws.
Just stick the word 'terrorist' before anyone's name.
I mean every day I see dozens of acts of terrorism including jaywalking (which could scare a driver into careening off the road and hitting another pedestrian done by a person who ideologically is promoting his belief in walkable cities), littering, speeding, helping old ladies across the street, etc.
ghm101 — 2014-02-20T16:50:10-05:00 — #11
a case of pot meet kettle?
crenquis — 2014-02-20T16:50:36-05:00 — #12
but the actions are tinpot republic actions...
kmoser — 2014-02-20T17:15:31-05:00 — #13
Miranda, huh? I wonder if he had the right to remain silent.
josephprice — 2014-02-20T17:25:41-05:00 — #14
Will US condemn UK for using terrorism laws to suppress journalism?
solarsailor — 2014-02-20T18:30:28-05:00 — #15
"... is designed to influence a government and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause ..." Surely this falls under the definition of politics? Isn't this what an opposition party or any special interest or pressure group does? Am I a terrorist because I seek to influence government by signing Avaaz or 38 degrees petitions? Perhaps I am a terrorist because I seek to overthrow government by voting!
gilbertwham — 2014-02-20T18:41:04-05:00 — #17
darkmobius — 2014-02-21T06:51:53-05:00 — #18
That was my first thought too when I saw that wording for the first time.
julian_bond1 — 2014-02-21T17:16:32-05:00 — #19
I think we should congratulate Greenwald, Miranda, The Guardian and the others on a truly epic troll. This is playing out exactly as planned.
boingboing — 2014-02-25T15:59:37-05:00 — #20
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.