boingboing at February 20th, 2014 15:59 — #1
jandrese at February 20th, 2014 16:07 — #2
Condemn? I think the administration is trying to figure out how to apply this locally right now.
miramon at February 20th, 2014 16:10 — #3
Hell itself will be experiencing a "chilling effect" before the US condemns the UK for harassing someone associated with a US whistleblower.
newliminted at February 20th, 2014 16:20 — #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 at February 20th, 2014 16:21 — #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 at February 20th, 2014 16:27 — #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 at February 20th, 2014 16:30 — #7
brunel at February 20th, 2014 16:36 — #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 at February 20th, 2014 16:37 — #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 at February 20th, 2014 16:42 — #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 at February 20th, 2014 16:50 — #11
a case of pot meet kettle?
crenquis at February 20th, 2014 16:50 — #12
but the actions are tinpot republic actions...
kmoser at February 20th, 2014 17:15 — #13
Miranda, huh? I wonder if he had the right to remain silent.
josephprice at February 20th, 2014 17:25 — #14
Will US condemn UK for using terrorism laws to suppress journalism?
solarsailor at February 20th, 2014 18:30 — #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 at February 20th, 2014 18:41 — #17
darkmobius at February 21st, 2014 06:51 — #18
That was my first thought too when I saw that wording for the first time.
julian_bond1 at February 21st, 2014 17:16 — #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 at February 25th, 2014 15:59 — #20
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.