Quoting connies4ever (Reply 49): 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.

It's an interesting point alright. He is no doubt very familiar with the legislation, but the question there for me has to be whether he knows the finer detail of the motives for and circumstances of the detention and questioning, and whether he has all the operational understanding that the officers possessed at the time, in order to be able to make such an assertion. I would bet the answer to the latter is no. Discussing laws on paper is very different from using them in real life, and things don't always work out in reality the way they were intended to when you were sitting in a room planning the legislation. As I said earlier, I'll wait to see what the court says after full digestion of all facts.

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 48):

Well I'm not going to lose sleep at night.


It's not like he was given a beating or tortured.


Or even put on an aircraft so a third party where torture can be administered.


He was questioned, offered legal council (which he refused) and released after 9 hours.


Now he is whinging to the press over his treatment and wants to sue the British Govt.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 50): Discussing laws on paper is very different from using them in real life, and things don't always work out in reality the way they were intended to when you were sitting in a room planning the legislation.

Police and security officers are in fact officers (or friends, if you like) of the court. They are required to follow the law as writ. They are not allowed to interpret it. That is for the judge, whose decision can, of course, be appealed. When the whole process is redacted it then becomes very susceptible to abuse at whatever stage you care to suggest.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 52): Police and security officers are in fact officers (or friends, if you like) of the court. They are required to follow the law as writ. They are not allowed to interpret it. That is for the judge, whose decision can, of course, be appealed. When the whole process is redacted it then becomes very susceptible to abuse at whatever stage you care to suggest.

They are still required to be the conduit between written law and real life though, and that's often not as clear-cut as would seem likely. That's my only point really.

I'm not quite sure of all the hoopla. Police in the US have had the right to detain "suspects" for up to 3 days without charges for decades. Happened to me once in the '70's. It gives them time to dig around. I am betting the lawyer thing is a lie, the reporter is coming off over-dramatic.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 47): Please look at this and note how it is not the USA.

I see now. I got two posts mixed up, I thought he was talking about what would happen in the US.

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?

Because, sadly, at least in the US, the conservative-dominated court has heard cases, and has directly and indirecty upheld the right of the government to detain, torture, etc., in the name of "freedom"...Most recently:
e.g. http://rt.com/usa/supreme-rumsfeld-vance-court-493/

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 27): Mr. Miranda

Quoting AyostoLeon (Reply 40): right to remain silent

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

   Interesting name...given the context...

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 22): I will now seriously reconsider ever going there again, until that tyrannical law is repealed.

While I am upset about this, it must be said that the US government is far worse in this respect. (It's likely we "asked" the Brits to stop this guy in fact...) And I know at least one person who has been worse treated at the US border for no reason under terrorism laws. I wouldn't go cancelling your trip!

Quoting pvjin (Reply 18): 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.

The USA has plenty of problems, but your idealization of anyone who gives the finger to the US is beyond naive. Most of the South American countries (all except Chile and Uruguay in fact) have significantly higher corruption on transparency charts, and de jure or de facto that means significantly higher risks for whistle-blowers. And others or the same have significantly worse human rights records in other areas. I'm just saying that you shouldn't let your frustration with the US cloud your judgement completely. If I recall you even in another thread tried to claim that if the USSR had prevailed the world would have been safer!

I was just watching an interview with David Miranda on BBC News.

One thing that he said was that the Digital media was given to him by "someone that he trusted" who was a journalist.

Apparently, he did not know what was on the Digital media.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 56): Interesting name...given the context...

Yes, but I think the rule is only called Miranda in the U.S.  

Quoting n229nw (Reply 56): While I am upset about this, it must be said that the US government is far worse in this respect.

Actually, we're pretty much equal in the treatment of foreigners at borders except in one key point: it is not (nor can it ever be, absent a repeal of the 5th Amendment) a crime to remain silent when being detained and questioned. Just like this wiretapping nonsense, just because the Patriot Act says something is legal, doesn't make it so.

Unfortunately, I am not in a position to leave the US to live in another, but fortunately I have somewhat of an ability (and the moral right) to work to change what the US does, as it is my country.

Theoretically, on the moral side of things, the United States of America belongs to the people, and the government is by the people, of the people, and for the people. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland belongs to the Crown, and the government works and serves at the Crown's pleasure, and the people are subjects of the Crown and the government.

And it seems that Number 10 Downing Street was in the know about the detention - briefed about it beforehand.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23769324

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.

And as it happens this 'classified' information is actually of substantial interest to many of the citizenry. Programs such as Xkeyscore, PRISM etc appear to have been classified to keep the general population in the dark about the extent to which their activities are blatantly monitored. The only grounds for 'national security' being that if the general population found out about them, they might want more light shone on such activities, or for them to be stopped altogether.

Quoting moo (Reply 8): And who holds journalists accountable?

The government; as seen here, it intimidates family members of those who it deems to cross the line it draws.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 10): 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.

Yes, it is handy for the police/prosecutors if no lawyer is involved. Makes their job so much easier.   Which is why:

Quoting NoUFO (Reply 13): Actually they did. But it is still embarrassing

Correct. It was eight hours into his interrogation. (fourth paragraph).
http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...d-miranda-reason-detention-lawyers

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

Given that Mr Snowden was able to take a significant amount of data and run, one wonders what info/data his other peers are able to access without repercussions. What is to stop them using their position for extortion, blackmail, stalking or stealing sensitive corporate data and selling it off to the highest bidder?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 33): if those appropriate channels aren't good enough then that's something that should be worked on

Whats that supposed to mean?

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!

A very sad sign of the times.....don't want the press to do their job....better for the population to be reading about Kardashians (or similar) than something that actually concerns them. Thankfully The Guardian has access to other copies of the data.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 45): By definition, the wrong hands could include terrorists.

Once again, the term 'terrorist' gets thrown around by the government (Theresa May, I believe) to scare people into trusting that the government's actions/means must be justified. Same with the '[could] lead to a loss of lives' phrase. Glenn Greenwald isn't going to email the raw data to Ayman al-Zawahiri or similar.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 49): 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.

What he says makes a lot of sense. I'd love to see how all this stands up in court.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 56): Most recently

Urgh. Did that even get reported in the US mainstream media?

I hope that everything in Snowden's files becomes public. More so for the embarrassment of the Western establishment than anything. The UK is shameful for their actions...personally I won't be going there anytime soon.

There was no reason to hold this man under a law concerning terrorism....what was his crime in the eyes of police or any international intelligence organization? That he is the partner of the journalist that published Snowden's information?

Horrid and shameful.

And yet Britain was instrumental in invading Iraq and killing Qaddafi. Pathetic really.

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

Of course he won. Look at the polls in the United States. Americans largely don't even care that their government is doing all this criminal spying, bullying of countries, and killing indiscriminately through drones and needless wars. Osama in fact helped them establishment achieve their goals. "Stupid Americans" aren't about to challenge them, because they aren't learned enough on these issues (most don't even care to become so), they feel afraid and victimized by the issue of "foreign terror", and ignorant nationalism.

Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 59): Theoretically, on the moral side of things, the United States of America belongs to the people, and the government is by the people, of the people, and for the people. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland belongs to the Crown, and the government works and serves at the Crown's pleasure, and the people are subjects of the Crown and the government.

A reasonable summation, I think, of the relationship between the citizens/subjects and their form of government.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 60): And it seems that Number 10 Downing Street was in the know about the detention - briefed about it beforehand.

I would have been shocked if it were otherwise.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 60): Once again, the term 'terrorist' gets thrown around by the government (Theresa May, I believe) to scare people into trusting that the government's actions/means must be justified. Same with the '[could] lead to a loss of lives' phrase. Glenn Greenwald isn't going to email the raw data to Ayman al-Zawahiri or similar.

There is of course the old saw "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

In all candour, I have to add, Canada is not innocent in all this. We have an entity called CSEC (Communications Security Establishment Canada) that does a LOT of electronic snooping, both for our national needs and for the "Group of Five" (Canada, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand). They are expressly forbidden to eavesdrop on Canadians, anywhere in the world. Turns out, big surprise, they've been doing this all along. Perhaps not with PRISM, but with something.

Additionally, turning back to human rights, there is a super secure area of the Kingston Penitentiary, where "security risks" are held. They have not actually been charged with anything, are not actually Canadian citizens but are what we call "landed immigrants", i.e., people who wish to legally become Canadians. They are being held under what is known as a "Ministerial Certificate", where the federal Attorney General (I believe, might be Minister of Justice) goes before a federal judge, in secret, to present the government's evidence. The not quite accused is not present and has no representative. If the judge approves, the person of interest is removed the the secure area and held until the situation is resolved. No appeal. There are I believe seven people being held there currently. All Muslim. Figure it out.

Human rights ? Not so much. More "do as I say not as I do".

Quoting n229nw (Reply 56): Interesting name...given the context...

That was a Phoenix case btw Miranda v. Arizona and went all the way to the Supreme Court. In theory as a citizen you should know your rights and not need them explained to you, re: dumb Americans. The opposing view is that courts have routinely held in the US the police absolutely can lie to you so long as the lie would not cause an innocent person to incriminate themselves. "You're not a cop are you? Because if you are you have to tell me." Nope they don't and you won't get off on a technicality in the US if you offer to sell drugs or sexual favors to the officer who lied answering you. Same goes for during the interrogation so in theory the danger is they could lie to you about the right to an attorney or right to remain silent without the warning.

I fully understand why the UK viewed Mr. Miranda as suspicious. What may have at first looked like harassing who he was sleeping with quickly established he was a courier for his partner and the paper. I suspect he may have been given heavily encrypted nonsense just to mess with the UK because why risk transit thru the UK otherwise? (Maybe they really aren't that smart after all but I wouldn't be surprised if it was deliberate to see if he was being watched) However I do not at all find it appropriate he was detained to the maximum the law allowed unless they were prepared to charge him. Clearly they weren't and that's why this looks to everyone like it was more about intimidation than legitimate law enforcement activity. It didn't take 8h55m to confiscate all his material and send him on his way. Brazil is absolutely correct to be protesting this treatment of their citizens.

I may not be a UK citizen but have visited the UK several times and may again in the near future. If I am held by any UK law enforcement and told I can not refuse to answer their questions would it be legal for me to repeat, "I request to speak with a representative of the United States consulate." over and over? Legal or not that's what I'd do and suspect it would cause an incident with my government if it went to 8h55m or I was charged for refusing to answer.

Quoting skywaymanaz (Reply 64): I may not be a UK citizen but have visited the UK several times and may again in the near future. If I am held by any UK law enforcement and told I can not refuse to answer their questions would it be legal for me to repeat, "I request to speak with a representative of the United States consulate." over and over? Legal or not that's what I'd do and suspect it would cause an incident with my government if it went to 8h55m or I was charged for refusing to answer.

I suspect if you were detained under the Terrorism Act of 2000 (whether justified or not), your government would know about it pretty quickly. State would then delegate to problem to a mid-level staffer to stick-handle around the issue.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63): We have an entity called CSEC (Communications Security Establishment Canada) that does a LOT of electronic snooping, both for our national needs and for the "Group of Five" (Canada, USA, UK, Australia, New Zealand). They are expressly forbidden to eavesdrop on Canadians, anywhere in the world. Turns out, big surprise, they've been doing this all along. Perhaps not with PRISM, but with something.

Same with New Zealand and the GCSB. It has been discovered that the agency has spied on New Zealand citizens and residents despite the law stating that it cannot. Yesterday the government passed a controversial (and very widely opposed) law widening its powers so that it can. This was despite substantial concerns from the Law Society and the Human Rights Commission. Additionally, the Prime Minister (who I once really liked) shoulder-taped a mate into running the organisation.

What I think all of comes down to is that the various government intelligence agencies have been operating above the law. They use the privilege of being able to classify information as a tool to give them impunity and to keep the public in the dark about what we should rightfully know. The issue is how easy it is for information to be classified. When questioned 'terrorist' and other such terms can be slapped about and the public will usually shut up (our PM did that with an al qaeda thread on breakfast radio earlier in the month). All of this concentrates power towards those at the intelligence networks.

...Meanwhile privacy gets trampled all over. You can't preemptively turn every person into a suspect. Except thats what seems to be happening already.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 62): Of course he won. Look at the polls in the United States. Americans largely don't even care that their government is doing all this criminal spying, bullying of countries, and killing indiscriminately through drones and needless wars.

   but not just limited to the US. It seems to extend to plenty of western nations too.

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 63): Quoting Maverick623 (Reply 59): Theoretically, on the moral side of things, the United States of America belongs to the people, and the government is by the people, of the people, and for the people. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland belongs to the Crown, and the government works and serves at the Crown's pleasure, and the people are subjects of the Crown and the government. A reasonable summation, I think, of the relationship between the citizens/subjects and their form of government. Quoting zkojq (Reply 60):

But in the UK it has changed quite a bit since the English Civil War, the execution of Charles I and later the Glorious Revolution and the ousting of King James II, who both had absolutist grandeurs (the English also realised that they didn´t like a military dictatorship either and prefered a constitutional monarchy, with a strong parliament and a government elected by the parliament).
Defacto while the ruling monarch in Britain still has e.g. the armed forces sworn on her / him, he/she has very little to say.
There exists a compact that the governmen t policies are made by an elected government. Curiously the Queen / King acts as a stopgap to prevent this government from exceeding it´s borders. Similarly, should the monarch overstep her/his boundaries, parliament could get rid of the monarchy very fast.

BTW, being a republic didn´t stop the German governments from overstepping THEIR boundaries.
Both the ruling CDU (conservative) as well as the Socialdemocrats (opposition) were involved in giving the German
intelligence services excessive powers, the Socialdemocrats under Schröder after the shock of 9/11, when it was found out that a terrorist cell was operating for years in Germany and nobody knew anything about them.
Any executive will try to increase it´s powers and to get past the limitations set by theb legislative and the judicative.
Even the "libertarian" Freie Demokraten are in their mainstream only interested that intellectual property gets guarded.
A few oldtimers of this party though are still fighting for the ideal of individual freedoms from government intrusions.
Jan

Quoting zkojq (Reply 60): Glenn Greenwald isn't going to email the raw data to Ayman al-Zawahiri or similar.

Oh I forgot, Terrorists don't read newspapers or online blogs do they?

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 61): The UK is shameful for their actions...personally I won't be going there anytime soon.

That's ok, The other 4.5million Americans who visit Great Britain every year, have a largely trouble free and enjoyable holiday. The other 30million tourists from around the globe, would be the same.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 60): Quoting RussianJet (Reply 33): if those appropriate channels aren't good enough then that's something that should be worked on Whats that supposed to mean?

It's supposed to mean that if internal whistle-blowing prodecures are inadequate then they should be improved, so that there's no need for rogue agents to have an excuse to go to the press.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 60): Yes, it is handy for the police/prosecutors if no lawyer is involved. Makes their job so much easier. Which is why:

It's not always a question of 'handy'. Sometimes it is appropriate for no lawyer to be involved, for example if secret information is at risk which could jeopardise national security. It's a measure that should be used with extreme caution, but it is sometimes necessary. I'm sure you'd love to believe that there are no such situations, but meanwhile in the real world it could sometimes work out that way. Anyway, it's been shown to be a largely moot point here.

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 61): I hope that everything in Snowden's files becomes public. More so for the embarrassment of the Western establishment than anything. The UK is shameful for their actions...personally I won't be going there anytime soon.

Pardon my ignorance, but he has a bunch of files and he's releasing them bit by bit? Why is he doing that? Is there much worse to come?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 69): It's supposed to mean that if internal whistle-blowing prodecures are inadequate then they should be improved, so that there's no need for rogue agents to have an excuse to go to the press.

What if the whole chain of command up to the chief executive (prime minister, chancellor, president etc.) is corrupt and the executive uses warrantless illegal wiretapings and information gathering as a standard procedure? What if anything, which could be embarrassing for the executive gets declared "secret"? E.g. for Nixon the idea of the opposition Democrats winning the election was already considered a matter of national security.
Secret slush funds have been used by governments to carry out illegal practices. Of course the existence of the funds themselves, which were operated without parliamentary oversight, was declared "secret".
What about e.g. the Iran-Contra affair, which was highly illegal by US laws?
An example from Germany was the "Spiegel" affair back in 1962, for details see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiegel_scandal. In short, Chancellor Adenauer and Minister of Defence Strauss deliberatel neglected the conventional troops of the Bundeswehr, so that the units performed absolutely inadequately during the NATO military exercise FALLEX 62. NATO declared the Bundeswehr not to be able to defend Germany and do their alloted tasks in NATO. The reason for the neglect was that Adenauer and Strauss wanted to convince the Americans to give Germany tactical nukes to make up for the shortcomings. Some whistleblowers within the Bundeswehr alerted the German weekly "Spiegel" about this affair, which then published it. Shortly afterwards the editor of the Spiegel, various members of the editorial staff and several Bundeswehr officers got arrested for treason and the magazine shut down. This caused a public outcry and in the end all arrested persons were released and aquitted and both Adenauer and Strauss had to resign.

Jan

It seems that Strauss, (not deliberately!!) did Germany a favour.

Quoting Dano1977 (Reply 68): Oh I forgot, Terrorists don't read newspapers or online blogs do they?

And how exactly will a read of The Guardian help them get around Xkeyscore or PRISM?

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 69): It's not always a question of 'handy'. Sometimes it is appropriate for no lawyer to be involved, for example if secret information is at risk which could jeopardise national security. It's a measure that should be used with extreme caution, but it is sometimes necessary. I'm sure you'd love to believe that there are no such situations, but meanwhile in the real world it could sometimes work out that way

If it truly is an urgent national security situation involving terrorists, then I doubt Mr. terrorist is going to tell the police the information they need, regardless of whether his lawyer is or isn't present.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 70): Why is he doing that?

Keeping it in the news. As it should be.

Quoting zkojq (Reply 73): And how exactly will a read of The Guardian help them get around Xkeyscore or PRISM?

Do you really think they´ll get top level terrorists, spies or Mafiosi through these programmes? These people lead conspirative lives and avoid using electronic means of communication. They use personally known and trusted human couriers, who memorize messages, dead letterboxes etc.. AFAIK, OBL and other AQ leaders didn´t have computers or telephones (both landline or mobile) in their houses.

All they´ll possibly catch are smallscale wannabe terrorists and criminals who are not careful.

Jan

Quoting connies4ever (Reply 65): I suspect if you were detained under the Terrorism Act of 2000 (whether justified or not), your government would know about it pretty quickly. State would then delegate to problem to a mid-level staffer to stick-handle around the issue.

True but that doesn't exactly explain if the course of action I outlined above would be legal. That's not to say I would refuse to answer routine questions. If I was being detained in a secure room though at some point I'd probably refuse to cooperate without someone from the Embassy or Consulate around to make sure I got legal representation. It's not like those kind of mistakes haven't happened before. It may sound like the Tuttle/Buttle mix up in the film Brazil (ironic given Mr. Miranda's citizenship) but it has happened in the US. After the Madrid train bombing the FBI arrested Brandon Mayfield based on erroneous fingerprint evidence. He was held without being informed of the charges against him or legal representation. His family wasn't permitted to see him and didn't know what it was about until the FBI leaked it to the media two weeks later.

Far fetched it could happen to any one of us but not impossible. I know what my rights are in this country but not sure i know what they are in others.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 74): Do you really think they´ll get top level terrorists, spies or Mafiosi through these programmes?

Top level? Unlikely, for the reasons you mentioned.
On the other hand, I note that intelligence agencies claimed to have intercepted communications from Al Qaeda's leaders which lead to the recent shutdown of US embassies in MENA. One notes that a lot of the Senators who spoke at length to the public about the embassy threats (Saxby Chambliss, Lindsey Graham and Peter King) are some of the strongest supporters of the aforementioned programs and the harshest critics of Edward Snowden's actions. Join the dots (I'm not trying to sound conspiratorial).

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 74): These people lead conspirative lives and avoid using electronic means of communication. They use personally known and trusted human couriers, who memorize messages, dead letterboxes etc.. AFAIK, OBL and other AQ leaders didn´t have computers or telephones (both landline or mobile) in their houses. All they´ll possibly catch are smallscale wannabe terrorists and criminals who are not careful.

  

[Edited 2013-08-24 06:14:18]

Quoting Pellegrine (Reply 61): I hope that everything in Snowden's files becomes public. More so for the embarrassment of the Western establishment than anything. The UK is shameful for their actions...personally I won't be going there anytime soon. There was no reason to hold this man under a law concerning terrorism....what was his crime in the eyes of police or any international intelligence organization? That he is the partner of the journalist that published Snowden's information? Horrid and shameful. And yet Britain was instrumental in invading Iraq and killing Qaddafi. Pathetic really.

'Everything?' Really?
Be careful what you wish for....

Even if you think that the length and manner of his detention was excessive (I do), they did have reason to suspect that he might be carrying sensitive information.
In the same way that Customs Officers might suspect someone is carrying contraband.
Greenwald can bitch all he likes, even if you think he is doing us a service in his exposures, the fact remains that he has published information that governments think is sensitive and must have expected some kind of reaction.

But I don't think Snowden would release, if he has it, anything that would directly aid terrorists.
He was, it seems, motivated by watching on TV, his bosses tell outright lies to US lawmakers about the scope of NSA intel gathering.
I don't think he is a traitor.
Maybe it would help some if some US politicians could curb their knee jerk reactions to call for massive prison terms (before any trial), or even the death penalty, thankfully none with the power to actually do such a thing. Yet.
Have a go at the UK all you like, I don't see anything remotely like that coming from any British politician, even the idiots.

So he's not another Assange, that creep wanted to release info that would directly threaten lives, including those providing intel on enemies, he thought that 'they deserve it'.
(Given how he seems to be around women, may be has some deep empathy with the Taliban).
He was prevented from doing so since he needed the cooperation of newspapers, including The Guardian and the NYT, so he fell out with them, he seems to fall out with everyone eventually.

Back to Greenwald and his partner, to get where he was going to, this man did not need to transit through LHR, touchdown in the UK at all.
Given how embedded the UK's GCHQ and the NSA are (the real 'special relationship'), this was a somewhat foolish act.
Greenwald is a experienced journalist, something of an authority on this whole subject, you'd think a red light would have flashed on knowing his partner and courier would be on UK soil.

I don't really buy the whole 'we are in a police state' idea.
Not because governments are sometimes acting as they are, it's motivation.
And technology, they are neurotic about having any blind spots in their ability to gather intel on terrorists, who have been shown to be very security aware.
The same would have happened after the invention of the telephone, I'd like to know when the first ever telephone tap was authorised.
Now we have the web and it's myriad related offshoots, the idea that hostile forces could organise within that frightens governments.

This whole issue to me seems a textbook case of technology being way ahead of the law, ahead of the institutions that govern intel and it's scope.
And to try and keep up, corners are cut, the best analogy I can think of beyond governments, is how the established music industry reacted to downloading, starting with Napster.

Governments that rely on the ballot box to gain and stay in power fear being labelled 'incompetent' or 'soft' if a major terrorist attack happens that better intel might have prevented.
They fear the reaction of the electorate.
That's us.

An open letter to PM Cameron from the editors of the main Nordic newspapers has been released in the Nordic newspapers aswell as the Observer / The Guardian on Sunday :

http://www.theguardian.com/theobserv...ity-miranda?guni=Keyword:news-grid main-1 Main trailblock:Editable trailblock - news:Position3:sublinks

I don't know what to believe anymore.

At first it was reported, Miranda was denied legal representation, than that changed to he was offered a lawyer, but declined to see him/her
Now its being reported in the Guardian that he used the lawyer for the last hour or so of his detention.

Until Miranda gets his story straight, the only thing we can be sure of is...


He was detained at Heathrow under Section 7 for the maximum of 9hours

He was offered legal representation and used it.