Forum menu
The truth is not terrorism.
BBC:
The Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has [b]"stolen information that would help terrorism"[/b].
That seems a reasonable justification to me, from the government's POV, if my emboldened bit can be backed up.
It seems a bit stupid of Miranda to be transiting via the UK too, the country being painted as villain number 2 in this saga.
Carrying documents, however obtained, does not make one a terrorist. Just think of the implications for journalism if the state has carte blanche to act in this way.
I've not seen any suggestion that he's a terrorist or has any sympathies. But that's not the issue. The issue (if I had my govt hat on) is that what he has may aid terrorism if it fell in the wrong hands. Which it could feasibly do, because those people don't ask nicely.
I don't know if any of the above is actually the case, but I can see how it could be.
My front door key could be of use to terrorists: they might need a safe house in a boring street.
So it's an abuse of power for the state to take classified information that belongs to it. Is it not illegal to be in possession of classified documents? Is not the job of the security services to remove your access to classified documents even if you think it's in the public interest for them to be published?
David Allen Green says so, I think, though I found it all rather difficult to read. Add in the Grauniad disk smashing and we need journos to ask questions.
They weren't Brit docs, and allegedly they disclosed abuse of power, so there's a whistleblower line to follow. You're sleepwalking through what may turn out to be interesting times.
[i]It seems a bit stupid of Miranda to be transiting via the UK too, the country being painted as villain number 2 in this saga. [/i]
Just speculating but could he have flown direct, was it a red herring?
was the flight Berlin to Brazil? There must be lots of ways to do that.
was it a red herring?
An intriguing possibility.
I think it is a red herring by the Government to claim he might have been carrying classified docs, there are lots of paths to moving documents and information that don't involve a person on a plane with actual physical objects.
As was pointed out in the rather silly raid on the guardian and the destruction of hard drives. The authorities wanted a show of force, but have made a farce out of it.
They weren't Brit docs
1) they don't necessarily need to be, the test is "could they help terrorism"
2) also, we (you & I) have no idea what he was carrying. Perhaps he could have British docs obtained via the US.
1) they don't necessarily need to be, the test is "could they help terrorism"
Your post could aid terrorism.
2) also, we (you & I) have no idea what he was carrying. Perhaps he could have British docs obtained via the US.
Seeing as they're encrypted, I doubt even the authorities know what he was carrying.
Given he wouldn't be stupid enough to carry the only copy of anything on his person, it was just an act of intimidation on the part of the authorities.
At least he didn't mysteriously commit suicide in transit.....
also, we (you & I) have no idea what he was carrying. Perhaps he could have British docs obtained via the US
so might you or any other passenger
If he was a spy or a journo with these documents would he really carry them through customs when he could have stored them electronically?
I think someone, somewhere has been far too heavy-handed and caused themsleves major embarassment. Probably a case of too little real decent intelligence leading to an inevitable and clumsy grab at the ball.
On the other hand, I wouldn't put it past some of the Graun's more militant journos and their associates to 'trail their coat' a bit in the hope of a pull from the authorities, that they can then use to kick up a shit-storm.
Anyway, the whole incident is a disgrace. How can anyone give that odious, sanctimonious, hair-flicking, publicity-craven muppet Louise Mensch another reason to get her oar in. WTF has it got to do with her anyway? Unless shite chick-lit is now considered subversive to the general well-being of the populace, of course.
With luck, someone is breaking through several layers of encription, possibly right now, to read a copy of the Brazilian telephone directory.
With you on Ms Mensch, well stated.
so might you or any other passenger
yeah but the authorities need some kind of "probable cause" (that's not the right phrase I'm sure). They can't just stop people at random, they need some kind of plausible reason to believe the individual should be stopped.
Miranda assists Greenwald, it's a reasonable position that he may be carrying these things, he has a connection to them.
I'm just a random bod Joe Schmoe.
If he was a spy or a journo with these documents would he really carry them through customs when he could have stored them electronically?
well ... can't email them because emails will be intercepted. Can't carry hard copy presumably ... very bulky and can't be encrypted. Can't whack them up on Google Docs or Dropbox, likely the NSA has copies of all of those. What's left ... carry an encrypted copy digitally on a hard drive or URB drive.
As for customs, if he was just changing planes he wouldn't go through customs would he? (Genuine question, it's been years since I've done it).
ps personally I'm neutral on whether this was a valid thing to do or not, I don't know. Time will tell, and us bods don't have the full facts. I'm just making the case it might be, especially to somebody whose job was working for UK government security. So far the "definitely out of order" camp haven't convinced me.
With you on Ms Mensch, well stated.
Back of the net!
yeah but the authorities need some kind of "probable cause" (that's not the right phrase I'm sure). They can't just stop people at random, they need some kind of plausible reason to believe the individual should be stopped.
The documents in question detail the systematic abuse, by governments of many nations, of laws of this ilk. Why are you giving the authorities the benefit of the doubt when this whole situation has arisen from authority’s lies?
What's left ... carry an encrypted copy digitally on a hard drive or URB drive.
Loads and loads and [i]loads[/i] of methods.
I can't write them though, I could be detained for assisting terrorism.
What's left ... carry an encrypted copy digitally on a hard drive or URB drive.
Well, a 32Gb MicroSD card would carry a shit-load of text documents, and would be very easy to hide.
CountZero - MemberWell, a 32Gb MicroSD card would carry a shit-load of text documents, and would be very easy to hide.
im sure 9 hours of cavity searching would eventually yield results
dannyh - Member
How can anyone give that odious, sanctimonious, hair-flicking, publicity-craven muppet Louise Mensch...
...ok, fair enough... but
another reason to get her ([i]or anyone else's?[/i]) oar in. WTF has it got to do with her anyway?
Its a bit rich to knock anyone (even Mensch!) for sticking their oar in, when surely this is the whole point of this thread? Its got as much to do with her as it has to the rest of us?
Anyway, it will be interesting when (at least some of) the real facts come out. Then perhaps proper comments can be made? Maybe a start could be made with Miranda's profession or otherwise? The Guardian is showing admirable dexterity here!!!
Does anyone else remember the fuss over the police bust in Damian Green's office? I bet he's keeping quiet now.
While the "journalists" are all having a good navel gaze/a ganshing of teeth on R4 PM this afternoon, I think Dan Hodges take on it seems fairly balanced in the absence of anything more informative from David Anderson QC.
Hodges piece is right that the guardian have kicked up a hoo haa because someones boyf got nicked
but in his engorged excitement to bash the gruaindaders avoids the questions of whether it was an abuse of powers to use schedule 7 and why exactly they needed to hold the guy for 9hours
If that article's balanced, then I've got a chip on both shoulders. 🙂
Hodges piece misses by a mile. The Snowden material is not suggested to be the names of spys or secret locations etc it is evidence of illegal government information interception . It is a threat to our government as it reveals how it and that of Blair have acted outside the law and sold gchq to the Americans so that they can do here that which they cannot legally do at home. None of this is about terrorism but the act is the only legislation that allows the security service to act without reasonable suspicion probable cause or rational justification . In effect it says we can detain you just because we want to we can keep you for 9 hours and if you don't cooperate that is a crime for which we can send you to prison. The only safeguard is the idea "trust us we are the good guys."
Worth noting that those who speak in favour of this are Louise Mench who has nothing to lose but can be a bridge to the U.S. for the conservatives and Hodge a Blairite cookoo.
Previous uses of AT legislation, from my (admitedly unreliable) memory...
against the Iceland bank(s)
against photographers in public places, central London
did local authorities try to use it over dustbins or school catchments or something?
From what I've been reading very few, if anyone else has ever been held for the full 9 hours and they didn't even question him about terrorism or terrorist related activities.
Sounds like they wanted chapter and verse on his life to date and used a very dodgy and poorly piece of legislation (Schedule 7 which allows the powers that be to stop anyone passing through a port - nicely broad and with now mention of '...and suspected of terrorist activities' hence Scotland Yard being able to say the proce3ss was 'legally sound') to basically give the guy a hard time because someone his husband has had contact with in his professional duty gave his husband information that has really embarrassed the UK and the US.
I know I should listen to all of Ms May's interview but haven't got sufficient alcohol in the house to get me through it but the gist seemed to be 'I didn't tell the police to do / not do anything so nothing to do with me' and ' the police should be able to stop people who have information that might help terrorists'.
If anyone seriously believes the UK and US governments had absolutely nothing to do with this is deluded and perhaps someone should point out to Ms May that information relating to Prism et al doesn't really help terrorists, it just embarrasses governments.
As an aside (and please note this following statement is meant for comedic effect and I am not condoning or suggesting we should go around setting fire to government ministers or anyone else) but does anyone else get the Monty Python Holy Grail - She's a witch, burn her sketch in their head every time they see / hear Ms May speak / talk.
Schedule 7 and this misuse of it is a reminder why a) politics does matter and people should take an interest and coupled with this b) why people should question legislation / government intervention that may have broader implications than just those being sold to us (e.g censoring the internet).
Anyway rant over...
Cheers
Danny B
very orwellian to use the terror laws to terrorise the populace.
if there was a threat to national security in some far fetched plot that a real terrorist could have got hands on classified material why did they wait till he was in one of the most secure places possible before intervening.
there is due process to be followed, this law allowed them to side step that. a clear abuse.
It's just basic intimidation, which is very stupid as it just encourages people even more to defy them.
Have the LibDems commented?
(edit)
And Labour bloke has spoke...
https://www.nsfwcorp.com/scribble/5689/
^ not that I have seen or heard. In fact they have been unusually quiet.
Hopefully they are looking to offer a robust statement objecting to the matter but are just taking their time formulating.
I will be very disappointed if they just stay silent...
Personally I will not be surprised if they just stay silent.
they said it was very naughty and that theyd be making sure it doesnt happen again
I think the party has basically imploded already in the sure knowledge of a thumping at the next election
Meanwhile, in the US, Groklaw has shut down with this comment...
[i]The owner of Lavabit tells us that he's stopped using email and if we knew what he knew, we'd stop too.
There is no way to do Groklaw without email. Therein lies the conundrum.
What to do?
What to do? I've spent the last couple of weeks trying to figure it out. And the conclusion I've reached is that there is no way to continue doing Groklaw, not long term, which is incredibly sad.[/i]
I've not seen any suggestion that he's a terrorist or has any sympathies. But that's not the issue.
Yes it is. The purpose of the legislation is to catch people who may be terrorists, not to harass people who may be in possession of stolen documents.
The purpose of the legislation is to catch people who may be terrorists
Got an original source link for that please? I'd like to read it.
Mattjg, there's an article by L Falconer who was involved in introducing the bill in the Guardian that makes this point but without a link to the legislation itself.
Good story to watch how the different sides of the media report this!!!
Got an original source link for that please? I'd like to read it.
Are your googling skills weak ?
[i]An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).[/i]
And section 40(1)(b) states :
[i]40 Terrorist: interpretation.(1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b)[b]is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.[/b][/i]
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/40
The purpose of the legislation is to catch people who may be terrorists
Got an original source link for that please? I'd like to read it.
From the act:
"An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)."
(section 40(1)(b))
"a person who…is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."
Taken from http://jackofkent.com/2013/08/nine-hours-in-the-life-of-david-miranda/
"Unless they are being used for the specified purpose of determining whether the detained person fills the definition of “terrorist” under section 40(1)(b) then the power to detain and question cannot be lawfully used.
And if that is not the purpose, then the power to search for property to assist in determining whether a person is a terrorist is not triggered, and this in turn means that the power to retain any property for evidence in criminal proceedings is also not triggered.
In other words, schedule 7 cannot be used as a fishing expedition for property."
Thanks, agreed, that seems fairly clear doesn't it. The police have to make a case now that that's what they were doing.
The police have to make a case now that that's what they were doing.
I'm guessing they we were told to threaten him by the Home Secretary.
Anti-terror legislation is a prime area where liberty can and is routinely abused in many countries (torture?) which is why checks and balances are important. It seems (although who knows yet) that the interpretation of the law in this case has been "stretched" to a considerable degree which means that sympathies "should be" (?) with Miranda. But there is something about their behaviour and threats (veiled or otherwise) and TG reporting of the whole issue that makes this less easy than it should be IMO!!!