

Was the nine-hour detention of David Miranda lawful? - fnordfnordfnord
http://jackofkent.com/2013/08/nine-hours-in-the-life-of-david-miranda/

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

Hooray for the rule of law.

------
glenra
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.

~~~
waqf
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".

~~~
glenra
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](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism)

