Gross Misuse/abuse Of UK Terrorism Law

kaitak · Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:14 pm

Last Sunday, a young Brazilian man was travelling through London, en route from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro; he was detained for just under nine hours and released without charge, having missed his connection to GIG. He was detained under a rarely used section of the UK terrorism act, which allows the police to detain someone, without access to a lawyer and denied the right to silence. He was threatened with jail, had possessions confiscated and interviewed at length about various aspects of his life.

He was not a terrorist, nor related to any terrorist group, nor did he pose any threat to UK security. He was the partner of a UK journalist, based in Brazil, currently working on the Edward Snowden story. The journalist, Glenn Greenwald, works for the Guardian, whom you will recall printed a lot of Wikileaks documentation.

So, some questions arise immediately:
- Given that the UK authorities never suspected him or accused him of membership of a terrorist organisation, nor of posing a terrorist threat, was this not a gross misuse of the legislation?
- How did they know he was the partner of Mr. Greenwald? Is he - a UK citizen - now under active surveillance by his country's own intelligence agency (and again, on what grounds)?
- Snowden is American and the country he allegedly committed crimes against is the US, so what does the UK have to do with this?

It seems like a gross misuse/abuse of legislation, which is likely ultimately to backfire and certain erode trust between the security services and the journalism profession.

nighthawk · Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:31 pm

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
nor did he pose any threat to UK security

yes he potentially does.

The documents leaked by Snowden contained details of joint surveillance programs operated by the UK and US. As he had just returned from a meeting with someone connected to Snowden, it was a reasonable assumption that he may be carrying additional files which have not yet been released.

I therefore think the police were justified in stopping and interrogating him. We do no not know why he was held for as long as he was - perhaps the police found something on his laptop that warranted further investigation?

moo · Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:46 pm

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
- Given that the UK authorities never suspected him or accused him of membership of a terrorist organisation, nor of posing a terrorist threat, was this not a gross misuse of the legislation?

He was detained under the powers of Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, and just like many countries laws the UKs laws cover a broader aspect than the title of the law suggests, so while the title is "Terrorism Act 2000", Schedule 7 is more of a border security power and doesn't have to be terrorism related.

The schedule operates under the premise that the officer has to have no suspicion at all that the person stopped is nvolved in terrorism offences.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
- How did they know he was the partner of Mr. Greenwald? Is he - a UK citizen - now under active surveillance by his country's own intelligence agency (and again, on what grounds)?

Actually, as the Guardian has been releasing information which concerns GCHQ and British operations, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the reporters are under surveillance, and any close relatives or acquaintances who are travelling.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
- Snowden is American and the country he allegedly committed crimes against is the US, so what does the UK have to do with this?

The problem is that the Guardian is a UK newspaper, revealing information about UK government agencies as well as US agencies - the Guardians actions are entirely separate to Snowdens actions, although they may be caused by them they don't get to hide behind Snowden.

connies4ever · Tue Aug 20, 2013 1:55 pm

This incident just underscores the fact that more and more, and pretty much everywhere, we're living in a police state. After 9/11, in many of the OECD countries, led by the US, citizens grabbed their ankles and "took one" for the GWOT. We'll never get those freedoms back, because those in power always want to have those tools.

Apparently, w.r.t. discs destroyed in front of government lackeys, the Guardian has the files stored "elsewhere". A wise move and I hope they keep the location closely held.

I rather think the Guardian would have made a better move by challenging the government to present it's case in court. I am quite sure there would have been no shortage of barristers who would have taken their case.

MD11Engineer · Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:34 pm

The journalist and Snowden are guilty of one offense: Embarrasing the US, UK and various NATO governments (including my own. It also involves the current German opposition, where the main candidate, under Schroeder and shortly after 9/11, agreed to give the NSA wideranging rights of surveillance in Germany, completely against our laws), who got caught pants down circumventing their respective country´s privacy laws and constitutions.

Jan

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:38 pm

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
rarely used section of the UK terrorism act, which allows the police to detain someone, without access to a lawyer and denied the right to silence.

What makes you think it's 'rarely used'? There are notices at all airports with Police controls which detail the fact that you are required by law to give information an officer asks you for, and other basic facts.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
- Given that the UK authorities never suspected him or accused him of membership of a terrorist organisation, nor of posing a terrorist threat, was this not a gross misuse of the legislation?

The definition enacted in successive terrorism acts is broad, and they also make provision for dealing with those who are deemed to be making information available which represents a security threat or could be construed as of aid to terrorists. If you knowingly divulge state secrets, and you know that you are obliged not to do so, you could certainly fall under one or more aspects of these very wide definitions. Although they may be called 'Terrorism Act(s)' there is far more to it than just the headline.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
- How did they know he was the partner of Mr. Greenwald?

It's their job to know. I'm surprised that you're surprised that people connected with Snowden and his leaks would be of interest.

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
It seems like a gross misuse/abuse of legislation,

That's of course a debatable point, but neither I nor you know the full details, or the information the Police had at their disposal. The individual's account of events is quite naturally likely to be coloured by his own motivations and experiences, and he also is not in full possession of all the relevant facts of this incident.

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
Actually, as the Guardian has been releasing information which concerns GCHQ and British operations, it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the reporters are under surveillance, and any close relatives or acquaintances who are travelling.

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
just like many countries laws the UKs laws cover a broader aspect than the title of the law suggests

Exactly.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 1):
yes he potentially does.

The documents leaked by Snowden contained details of joint surveillance programs operated by the UK and US. As he had just returned from a meeting with someone connected to Snowden, it was a reasonable assumption that he may be carrying additional files which have not yet been released.

And, it is not just about physical forms of information.

zkojq · Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:41 pm

I would suggest that this is a wider signal of the dangers that journalists now face. Report on what you like, but don't embarrass the government/hold them accountable.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
This incident just underscores the fact that more and more, and pretty much everywhere, we're living in a police state.

Retribution. How dare Mr Miranda's partner engage in Journalism. I guess next time they will transit through CDG, FRA or LIS. Disgusting that they wouldn't allow Mr Miranda access to a lawyer.

Quote:
According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, "fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders" (David was not entering the UK but only transiting through to Rio). Moreover, "most examinations, over 97%, last under an hour." An appendix to that document states that only .06% of all people detained are kept for more than 6 hours.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentis...g/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa

[Edited 2013-08-20 07:42:25]

DocLightning · Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:51 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 6):
Retribution. How dare Mr Miranda's partner engage in Journalism. I guess next time they will transit through CDG, FRA or LIS. Disgusting that they wouldn't allow Mr Miranda access to a lawyer.

And I very much hope that Brazil takes some serious diplomatic action to let the UK know that this is unacceptable.

moo · Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:52 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 6):
I would suggest that this is a wider signal of the dangers that journalists now face. Report on what you like, but don't embarrass the government/hold them accountable.

And who holds journalists accountable? Remember, these journalists are engaging in the distribution of classified information and documents, which is still potentially illegal whether you are a journalist or not.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 6):
How dare Mr Miranda's partner engage in Journalism.

Journalists get a way with a lot, all in the name of "journalism"...

petertenthije · Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:56 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 5):
What makes you think it's 'rarely used'?

The particular provision that allows for up to 9 hours detainment without charge is rarely used. Or at least it is rarely reported on in the media. Other provision within the schedule are used all the time. For instance section 44(2) is used all the time to ask for identification. In 2008 I was stopped under that section of the terror act while spotting at LHR.

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:14 pm

Quoting petertenthije (Reply 9):
Or at least it is rarely reported on in the media.

I would suspect that this is inevitably the case. Not everyone spoken to or detained in this way is famous or connected to some kind of well-known situation that would lead to it being reported in the media. I doubt it's particularly rare. By its very nature this is not the sort of thing that is regularly reported.

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
Remember, these journalists are engaging in the distribution of classified information and documents, which is still potentially illegal whether you are a journalist or not.

Absolutely right.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 6):
Disgusting that they wouldn't allow Mr Miranda access to a lawyer.

You might consider it so, but it's not surprising that such requests are rejected if the law supports this position. Given the sort of thing one might be questioned about, and given that you're not under arrest, it's pretty understandable that it's not desirable to have a lawyer sit in on things.

Derico · Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:24 pm

So, Osama in the end did win.

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:33 pm

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
So, Osama in the end did win.

A somewhat disingenuous claim, given that the UK and other countries have faced continue to face serious threats. If there were no need at all for such powers then fine, but you don't catch terrorists or mitigate national security threats just by asking nicely.

NoUFO · Tue Aug 20, 2013 3:47 pm

Quoting zkojq (Reply 6):
Disgusting that they wouldn't allow Mr Miranda access to a lawyer.

Actually they did. But it is still embarrassing.

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
Journalists get a way with a lot, all in the name of "journalism"...

So? Care to provide an example?
You sound like somebody who - very sadly - does not understand that journalists are there to monitor the powerful and their actions even if those are labeled 'secret'. You can label anything 'secret' - in the case of NSA and GCHQ way too much was labeled 'secret'.

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
it doesn't surprise me in the slightest that the reporters are under surveillance

Yes, and that's sad! They should rather start control their intelligence sevices for a chance - not journalists who do their jobs.

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 1):
The documents leaked by Snowden contained details of joint surveillance programs operated by the UK and US.

Against whom? And how? And to what extend? No one would say a word had the intelligence services maintained some sort of principle of proportionality and if there was no or only little doubt that they stayed firmly on the safe side of the law.

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:03 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
No one would say a word had the intelligence services maintained some sort of principle of proportionality

It's a tricky one. I see where you're coming from on that, but what we don't know is what Snowden might know that he hasn't (yet) blabbed about. You're right of course that had there been better control on him in the first place this situation might well have been avoided.

NoUFO · Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:15 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):
You're right of course that had there been better control on him in the first place this situation might well have been avoided.

I think you got me wrong here. By saying that intelligence services (as every power) need to be monitored, I meant to say that their actions need to be controlled - not whistleblowers. In my book, whistleblowers are welcome if there are no other means of bringing injustice and/or abuse of power to an end.

fr8mech · Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:19 pm

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
and denied the right to silence.

And, how is one denied the 'right to silence'?

Mir · Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:22 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 14):
what we don't know is what Snowden might know that he hasn't (yet) blabbed about.

I'm betting nothing. He's got very little to gain by not releasing any more information.

Quoting Fr8mech (Reply 16):
And, how is one denied the 'right to silence'?

It's a crime not to answer questions. So you can still be silent, but you'll be prosecuted for it.

-Mir

pvjin · Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:29 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
This incident just underscores the fact that more and more, and pretty much everywhere, we're living in a police state. After 9/11, in many of the OECD countries, led by the US, citizens grabbed their ankles and "took one" for the GWOT. We'll never get those freedoms back, because those in power always want to have those tools.

True, most of the western world is falling fast and isn't the beacon of freedom and democracy anymore, especially not any countries allied with the United States. I think certain countries in South America are starting to look way more free.

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
So, Osama in the end did win.

Indeed, if I had any faith in humankind in general I would be very disappointed at the development since 9/11.

Yeah, nice cycle: US government pissing off people by playing world police and violating international agreements -> Some people in Middle East rightfully started to hate US government -> Terrorism -> New Excuse for US government and it allies to act even more unethical way.

Although I'm certainly not a conspiracy nutter who would think US government was involved in 9/11 attacks I still hold US government and its allies fully responsible for all the terrorism western world has faced, including 9/11. All the terrorism against west can be directly linked at western imperialists messing around in areas that don't belong to them.

I hope all this madness, the worldwide economics, governments acting like rogue states etc will collapse some day and something new will emerge from the ruins of our current world. But I'm afraid by the time that happens humankind has managed to mess up this planet completely.

[Edited 2013-08-20 09:35:58]

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:31 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 15):
I think you got me wrong here. By saying that intelligence services (as every power) need to be monitored, I meant to say that their actions need to be controlled - not whistleblowers. In my book, whistleblowers are welcome if there are no other means of bringing injustice and/or abuse of power to an end.

Fair enough - thanks for clarifying.

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
He's got very little to gain by not releasing any more information.

Is that necessarily true? I mean, there's a difference between releasing general concerns as opposed to specific information that might directly help terrorists or whatever. Could it potentially be the difference between life behind bars if caught and going to the chair? I will confess that I have no idea of what the relevant federal punishments would be, so it's genuinely a question rather than an assertion.

Redd · Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:42 pm

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 1):
I therefore think the police were justified in stopping and interrogating him.

Good thing they did stop and interrogate, it sent a strong signal to any free thinkers to not think, do or contemplate. Not to mention the disaster, huge disaster they probably averted by stopping this left wing nutcase.

I for one feel safer to see human rights being stripped, I mean who really has the right to question a government? Crazy left wingers.

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:00 pm

Quoting Redd (Reply 20):
it sent a strong signal to any free thinkers to not think

Quoting Redd (Reply 20):
I for one feel safer to see human rights being stripped, I mean who really has the right to question a government?

If you take a job in the government or secret services, you do so knowing very well that it is your obligation not to disclose secrets. You are perfectly free not to take up such a job, but if you're uncomfortable with having to keep state secrets then don't sign the damn form saying that you'll do it. There should be checks and balances, including an adequate internal whistle-blowing system. If that aspect is currently inadequate then of course it should be addressed, but if you take the job knowing what the deal is and then see fit to go blabbing to the press, you only have yourself to blame for what comes next.

Maverick623 · Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:15 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
We'll never get those freedoms back

It would take the kind of revolution not seen since 1775-1783.

It could happen, but not with this generation. Too many pu**ies who will do anything in the name of security and safety.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 12):
but you don't catch terrorists or mitigate national security threats just by asking nicely.

I guess it's better to be terrorized and denied basic human rights by the "good guys" as opposed to "terrorists".

National security =/= personal safety. If I don't have the right to remain silent, then I am not secure or safe. Therefore, the UK government is a personal security threat. I will now seriously reconsider ever going there again, until that tyrannical law is repealed.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):
There should be checks and balances, including an adequate internal whistle-blowing system. If that aspect is currently inadequate then of course it should be addressed, but if you take the job knowing what the deal is and then see fit to go blabbing to the press, you only have yourself to blame for what comes next.

One must indeed be aware of the consequences when doing something (including jail time), but denying someone the right to remain silent and not incriminate oneself? That's a basic human right that should NEVER be infringed upon, no matter what you have done.

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:34 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 22):
I guess it's better to be terrorized and denied basic human rights by the "good guys" as opposed to "terrorists".

I haven't suggested that we should be 'terrorised' by anyone, but there is a certain reality to anti-terrorist work and we need to be sensible about that. Of course we shouldn't just dump all freedoms to fight it, but there's no point in pretending that some of it will not be, at least to some extent, necessarily ugly.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 22):
Therefore, the UK government is a personal security threat. I will now seriously reconsider ever going there again, until that tyrannical law is repealed.

I can understand that reaction. However, in order to fall foul of that particular aspect of the law the Police would have to prove that you had the information in your possession and refused to provide it. Ergo, if you're not actually hiding any terrorism-related information then you've little to worry about. Having said that, as we've already discussed, the law is broad in its definitions and that is potentially a serious problem.

edited for syntax error.

[Edited 2013-08-20 11:00:16]

connies4ever · Tue Aug 20, 2013 5:50 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
Quoting zkojq (Reply 6):
Retribution. How dare Mr Miranda's partner engage in Journalism. I guess next time they will transit through CDG, FRA or LIS. Disgusting that they wouldn't allow Mr Miranda access to a lawyer.

And I very much hope that Brazil takes some serious diplomatic action to let the UK know that this is unacceptable.

Very much sending a message. And the jagoff pols who pass these laws will no doubt, on any given national day, get up to the lectern and tell you to your face that you're living in a country that respects human rights.

Quoting moo (Reply 8):
And who holds journalists accountable? Remember, these journalists are engaging in the distribution of classified information and documents, which is still potentially illegal whether you are a journalist or not.

Journalists are responsible to their employers. And if their actions are seen to be harming the organisation, they will be let go.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 10):
Quoting moo (Reply 8):
Remember, these journalists are engaging in the distribution of classified information and documents, which is still potentially illegal whether you are a journalist or not.

Absolutely right.

In my time in the Canadian nuclear biz, I've seen expense accounts stamped "Secret". So if I divulge contents of same, I am to expect prosecution ? Start re-entry, get real.

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
So, Osama in the end did win.

Absolutely. Once the US Congress passed the Patriot Act, I knew OBL was laughing out loud.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13):
So? Care to provide an example?
You sound like somebody who - very sadly - does not understand that journalists are there to monitor the powerful and their actions even if those are labeled 'secret'. You can label anything 'secret' - in the case of NSA and GCHQ way too much was labeled 'secret'.

So it comes down to "who watches the watchers ?".

Quoting Mir (Reply 17):
It's a crime not to answer questions. So you can still be silent, but you'll be prosecuted for it.

You're living in Kafkaland, aren't you ? It's a basic human right to refuse to cooperate.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):
If you take a job in the government or secret services, you do so knowing very well that it is your obligation not to disclose secrets.

See comment above w.r.t. Replies 8 & 10.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 22):
It could happen, but not with this generation. Too many pu**ies who will do anything in the name of security and safety.

Again, agreed. 9/11 was a terrible thing, but that, and various power groups in the Western world, have managed to convince people that, yes, there are monsters under the bed. Scare people long enough, hard enough, then, yes,they'll support whatever you propose.

DeltaMD90 · Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:00 pm

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
So, Osama in the end did win.

Although I'm upset with the developments since 9/11, I pretty sure OBL would consider "winning" by having the US withdraw from the middle east and cut ties with Israel. I'm sure he would have been happy to see the problems we're having but he clearly defined his goals--having the US change its way of life wasn't one of them. I guess you can make the argument that this is an indirect way of getting what he wants, but IDK, that's kind of stretching it I think

My big question is how hasn't the SCOTUS (and the UK equivalent) not attacked the issues in each of our countries? You'd think after 12 years you'd have a high profile case or two. Not a conspiracy theorist, but it definitely seems like there is an agenda out there on what gets prosecuted and what doesn't

SoJo · Tue Aug 20, 2013 6:11 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
And I very much hope that Brazil takes some serious diplomatic action to let the UK know that this is unacceptable.

Out of the mouth of babes comes...above..

Look inside thyself and thy country. In other words, look at your own government first then you might see that in this case we were right. But if this happened in the USA???? It would be perfectly legal. Hmmmm!

NoUFO · Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:18 pm

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
So it comes down to "who watches the watchers ?".

It is of course more complicated than that, yes, but I feel that in the name the noble motive of providing safety, power was abused.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
You're living in Kafkaland, aren't you ? It's a basic human right to refuse to cooperate.

To be fair, as a witness you cannot refuse to testify. But that would be a) at trial and b) unless you would have to accuse yourself of a crime (which would probably make you lie anyway). But Mr. Miranda wasn't a witness and the executive enforcing coercive detention ... that would be a new one.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25):
My big question is how hasn't the SCOTUS (and the UK equivalent) not attacked the issues in each of our countries?

SCOTUS won't do anything by itself, and sueing somebody (whom?) would be quite complicated when you think of it.

Quoting SoJo (Reply 26):
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 7):
And I very much hope that Brazil takes some serious diplomatic action to let the UK know that this is unacceptable.

Out of the mouth of babes comes...above..

Look inside thyself and thy country.

What does that change? Doc is still right, Minister Patriota should invite the UK's ambassador over for a talk.

[Edited 2013-08-20 12:19:35]

connies4ever · Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:24 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 27):
To be fair, as a witness you cannot refuse to testify.

Miranda was not charged, he was being "interviewed". Of course he had the right to silence. If he was actually at trial, whether as accused or as witness, he could still refuse to testify. At which point he likely, although not absolutely, would be cited for contempt of court.

Mir · Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:36 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 19):
Could it potentially be the difference between life behind bars if caught and going to the chair? I will confess that I have no idea of what the relevant federal punishments would be, so it's genuinely a question rather than an assertion.

He can't the death penalty unless convicted of treason, and if Manning didn't get convicted of treason I think it's safe to say they wouldn't be able to get Snowden on that charge either.

My rationale comes from the idea that people will be more likely to go after him now if they think that by doing so they'll be able to stop other stuff from coming out from him. Whereas if he played all his cards now then there's nothing left to stop. He might face a greater punishment for it, but I'm not sure it would be that much greater.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):
If you take a job in the government or secret services, you do so knowing very well that it is your obligation not to disclose secrets.

Except that the individual in question (Miranda) was not employed by the government - he's an assistant to a journalist.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 24):
You're living in Kafkaland, aren't you ? It's a basic human right to refuse to cooperate.

I'm saying that's the UK's rationale - I'm certainly not saying I agree with it.

-Mir

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:42 pm

Quoting Mir (Reply 29):
Except that the individual in question (Miranda) was not employed by the government - he's an assistant to a journalist.

I was referring to Snowden, as part of the wider discussion around him that took place earlier. There obviously is a difference with journalists and those not specifically bound by agreements, yes.

bennett123 · Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:33 pm

Part of the problem is we do not know exactly what Snowdon had access to.

It may be that it include things that the Guardian should NOT have access to.

NoUFO · Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:34 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 30):
There obviously is a difference with journalists and those not specifically bound by agreements, yes.

But even as an employee of a governmental organisation, your first objective is to respect the constitution and the fundamental order your democratic/republican country bases upon. I feel this is what Snowden did. Even if you do not agree with his actions, you'll have to agree that it is very unlikely he was merely holding a grudge against his country or government (as opposed to perhaps Mr. Manning). Whether or not Mr. Snowden did the right thing is at the very least debatable as you can tell by the outrage his disclosures provoked.
I feel that for members of intelligence services and law enforcement this should trigger an alarm to move carefully. And what happens? They detain the husband/assistant of the journalist who made the scandal public. That's outright stupid, and to add insult to injury they detain them as long as it is legally possible. Normally they are through with their interview much faster. And they keep all his gadgets like phones and flash drives - apparently without any order of court whatsoever. Next time they will "interview" me to steal my notebook because it's fancy or so.

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:25 pm

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32):
But even as an employee of a governmental organisation, your first objective is to respect the constitution and the fundamental order your democratic/republican country bases upon

If you have such concerns then you should voice them through the appropriate channels though. As I said earlier, if those appropriate channels aren't good enough then that's something that should be worked on. Going to the press though is just foolish, and without stating the obvious, will clearly get you in a lot of trouble.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 32):
I feel that for members of intelligence services and law enforcement this should trigger an alarm to move carefully. And what happens? They detain the husband/assistant of the journalist who made the scandal public. That's outright stupid,

Stupid as far as you or I can tell from behind our computers at home, perhaps. But we are very far from having all the facts at our disposal, so I'm reserving judgement.

Redd · Tue Aug 20, 2013 10:40 pm

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 21):

I was referring to the journalist being detained. That is why I mentioned human rights being stripped.

I regard the matter of being held by the authorities without the right to counsel disturbing.

As to your comment about agreeing to work for the government and not having the right to complain after or disclose any secrets, why do you think that way?

Many a young person joins the government ranks as a naive idealist having no idea about the dirty business that goes on behind the scenes. Some can't be assimilated and go on to expose corruption. Tell me, if it were not for whistle blowers would we be not worse off?

[Edited 2013-08-20 15:46:19]

RussianJet · Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:15 pm

Quoting Redd (Reply 34):
I was referring to the journalist being detained. That is why I mentioned human rights being stripped.

OK then, and I apologise for blurring the two discussions somewhat. However, the whole world knows that there's a shed load of people out for Snowden right now, so if you've had any direct dealings with him it would be silly not to expect some fallout from that. As I say, I reserve judgement on the rights and wrongs of this particular instance, because we don't know all the facts. The Guardian is reporting that legal action is being brought, so we'll see what the court thinks in due course when they've considered the matter,

NoUFO · Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:35 pm

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
So, Osama in the end did win.

Miranda was detained under a section of legislation enacted in 2000 not 2001.

Meanwhile, The Guardian was pressed to destroy or surrender information leaked by Snowden which led to a bizzare destruction of hard drives in the newspaper's basement while GCHQ employees were watching and taking photographs.

Guardian editors had previously stressed that they are not the the sole recipient of the leaked files and that there are copies in other countries as well but to no avail. The Cameron government pressed the journalists to either surrender the hard drives or destroy them.
To protect the source, Mr. Snowden, the editors chose to destruct the hard drives.

This is incredible: a western government instructing a newspaper to destroy information! And they don't even have a court's approval!

connies4ever · Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:44 am

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 35):
The Guardian is reporting that legal action is being brought, so we'll see what the court thinks in due course when they've considered the matter,

This commentary should give Guardian supporters (including me) some hope:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...vid-miranda-law-detention-heathrow

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 36):
Meanwhile, The Guardian was pressed to destroy or surrender information leaked by Snowden which led to a bizzare destruction of hard drives in the newspaper's basement while GCHQ employees were watching and taking photographs.

Wise to have the alternate storage "off the premises", so to speak. GCHQ does not come out looking good in this. (Sidebar: 73-75 grad school in London, dated a girl whose father worked at GCHQ. Small world.)

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 36):
This is incredible: a western government instructing a newspaper to destroy information! And they don't even have a court's approval!

War is Peace. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery.

solarflyer22 · Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:13 am

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
Snowden is American and the country he allegedly committed crimes against is the US, so what does the UK have to do with this?

Well it included significant information on the UK's efforts and the fact that they received over $100 million dollars from the NSA to build out their system. I think the key point you are alluding to is:

Neither Snowden nor Greenwald have been charged with a crime in the UK. So what is the basis for suspicion? Because he bangs a reporter? Pardon my frank demeanor but are they going to detain my for 9 hours because of who I sleep with?

Quoting nighthawk (Reply 1):
I therefore think the police were justified in stopping and interrogating him.

Absolutely not. Perhaps the UK needs to read the Magna Carta again.

Quoting Derico (Reply 11):
So, Osama in the end did win.

Our culture changed. Its clearly for the worst and is undeniable IMHO.

This is a classic "guilty by association" detention worthy of a Arab dictator. Neither Miranda, Snowden or the Glenwald have UK arrest warrants outstanding. Snowden is on InterPol but Miranda has done nothing. He is 2 circles removed from someone who MAY have committed a crime.

I think its clear both in the UK and USA, the anti-terrorism laws are mis-used whenever its convenient and thats why they need to be re-written.

RussianJet · Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:23 am

Quoting solarflyer22 (Reply 38):
Neither Miranda, Snowden or the Glenwald have UK arrest warrants outstanding.

I guess that's why Miranda wasn't arrested then.

AyostoLeon · Wed Aug 21, 2013 2:59 am

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):

Sadly these days much of the world operates in Kafkaland. From arbitrary arrest and detention without trial, not being informed of what one is alleged to have done or what evidence is held, secret trials, all are authorised in the laws of various countries. The right to remain silent is a basic human right that exists increasingly in theory more than it does in practice.

Under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a person who is detained "must" provide an examining officer with any information in his possession that the officer requests. In law the word "must" imposes an obligation or duty. Under the relevent legislation a person who fails to comply, or who wilfully obstructs or seeks to frustrate a search or examination can be sentenced to a term of three months imprisonment or be fined.

It doesn't matter whether Miranda was "charged", he was in lawful custody and under an obligation and duty to answer questions. The relevant legislation removes any notion of a right to remain silent and imposes a duty to answer questions. In practical terms a person could always choose not to co-operate but in so doing he would be committing an offence.

Please note that I do not seek to justify arbitrary detention or compelling people to answer questions. I am simply pointing out the law as its stands, although I understand that there is a bill before Parliament that seeks to amend some of the Act's provisions.

ltbewr · Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:54 am

At the borders, which can include the international secure areas of airports, you don't have much in the way of rights unfortunately. In the case of the UK, they do not have a freedom of speech concept as broad as the USA and other countries, the government can use prior restraint on the news media, there is an Official Secrets Act where the government can do what they did with the partner of Mr. Greenwald including seizing any and all electronic materials and devices and at the site of The Guardian offices. The UK also has a bad history of terrorism, especially in the past from the IRA, so has strict laws on terrorism, more so than the USA. There is little doubt that the UK = of the NSA, CIA, FBI and border/customs enforcement is cooperating with the USA to help them find out what Snowden has passed along.
Sadly, I suspect this is going to get worse for Greenwald, anyone around him, Snowden and personal freedom and privacy.

DocLightning · Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:54 am

Quoting SoJo (Reply 26):
Look inside thyself and thy country. In other words, look at your own government first then you might see that in this case we were right. But if this happened in the USA???? It would be perfectly legal. Hmmmm!

Yeah, my government sucks. I'm not disputing that.

Maverick623 · Wed Aug 21, 2013 6:01 am

Quoting SoJo (Reply 26):
But if this happened in the USA???? It would be perfectly legal.

The detainment at the border would be perfectly legal.

The criminality of remaining silent and refusing to disclose sources would not be legal.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 27):

To be fair, as a witness you cannot refuse to testify.

You absolutely can.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
At which point he likely, although not absolutely, would be cited for contempt of court.

Nope. 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination trumps any contempt charge.

bennett123 · Wed Aug 21, 2013 7:17 am

5th Amendment does not apply in UK.

Regarding reasons for stopping David Miranda;

1. The Guardian is trying to run the information held by Snowdon. Greenwald is the reporter running that story.

We do not /cannot know what material Snowdon has.

2. Miranda is not just his partner, he also acts as a courier for Greenwald.

3. Miranda, (AFAIK) is not employed by the Guardian. However, his ticket was apparently paid by them.

IMO, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was carrying material from Snowden.

He is hardly an innocent bystander.

Whether his suspected actions are aiding terrorism or espionage, is of course a separate question.

Dano1977 · Wed Aug 21, 2013 9:05 am

Quoting kaitak (Thread starter):
He was detained under a rarely used section of the UK terrorism act, which allows the police to detain someone, without access to a lawyer and denied the right to silence. He was threatened with jail, had possessions confiscated and interviewed at length about various aspects of his life.

Actually if you read section 7 it states.

You have the right to seek legal advice. (at your own expense)
So if he didn't seek advice, then that's his problem and should stop whinging.

He also complained about no interpreter being present.

The fact of the matter is, he was offered legal council and an interpreter but declined both.

Then went on TV saying he wasn't offered legal council or and interpreter. But on a BBC interview this morning, his English was better than some natives that live in the UK.

Greenwald now has an axe to grind because his partner got detained for suspecting transporting classified intel.

Infact he said...

"On hearing of his partner’s detention, Greenwald said: “I am going to publish many more documents. I am going to publish things on England too. I have many documents on England's spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did."

So he's lost all objectivity, which showed in his early versions reporting for the guardian about the above event. Infact it was full of mis-truths and damn right lies. It was hasilty re-written by others and offered a slighty better balancing.

http://www.trendingcentral.com/who-w...s-initial-report-on-david-miranda/

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 3):
This incident just underscores the fact that more and more, and pretty much everywhere, we're living in a police state.

A man arrives at Heathrow airport. He’s not a journalist, but someone carrying a mystery package for a friend. What he’s carrying could, by common consent, have huge implications for the national security of the UK/US if it fell into the wrong hands. By definition, the wrong hands could include terrorists.
What do we honestly expect the UK authorities to do? Give him a sly wink and say “off you go son, you have a nice trip”?

[Edited 2013-08-21 02:07:54]

NoUFO · Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:14 am

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 45):
A man arrives at Heathrow airport. He’s not a journalist, but someone carrying a mystery package for a friend. What he’s carrying could, by common consent, have huge implications for the national security of the UK/US if it fell into the wrong hands. By definition, the wrong hands could include terrorists.

Of course this is awfully constructed and has little to nothing to do with reality.

RussianJet · Wed Aug 21, 2013 11:36 am

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
Nope. 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination trumps any contempt charge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom - Please look at this and note how it is not the USA.

Quoting bennett123 (Reply 44):
Regarding reasons for stopping David Miranda;

1. The Guardian is trying to run the information held by Snowdon. Greenwald is the reporter running that story.

We do not /cannot know what material Snowdon has.

2. Miranda is not just his partner, he also acts as a courier for Greenwald.

3. Miranda, (AFAIK) is not employed by the Guardian. However, his ticket was apparently paid by them.

IMO, it is not unreasonable to conclude that he was carrying material from Snowden.

He is hardly an innocent bystander.

Indeed. At the very least it provides some potential indication of why, and we don't even know what they know about him.

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 46):
Of course this is awfully constructed and has little to nothing to do with reality.

Perhaps. It's about as solid as the speculation that they had no good reason for stopping him though and at least as likely.

AyostoLeon · Wed Aug 21, 2013 12:01 pm

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 45):

Actually if you read Section 7 of the Act it relates to appeal on conviction. Miranda was held under Schedule 7 to the Act which contains not a single word about access to anybody. The right to notify someone and consult a solicitor is provided for in the following Schedule.

There is provision under Schedule 8, section 7 providing for the right to consult a solicitor if requested and stipulates that the time at which the request was made be recorded. However, Schedule 8, section 8 authorises certain officers to delay access and goes on to provide many grounds for delaying access.

The relevent Schedules can be read at:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
http://www.legislation.goc.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/8

You may note that the provisions for England, Wales and Northern Ireland do not specify that the solicitor may be present during interview but the detainee may request to consult as soon as reasonably practicable, in private and at anytime This is much more vague than the provisions for Scotland that state clearly that the solicitor may be present any interview.

[Edited 2013-08-21 05:26:03]

connies4ever · Wed Aug 21, 2013 1:08 pm

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 43):
Quoting connies4ever (Reply 28):
At which point he likely, although not absolutely, would be cited for contempt of court.

Nope. 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination trumps any contempt charge.

But as others have noted, this only applies in the US.

I see no comments on Lord Thoroton's critique of the detention. Basically he said "this detention has no legal basis in point of fact". For those not familiar with him, Lord Thoroton was one of the principals who introduced the Terrorism Act of 2000 to the UK Parliament. He should be extremely familiar with both the content and intent of the law.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net