Subscribe now and choose from over 30 free gifts worth up to £49 - Plus get £25 to spend in our shop
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow ]Partner of Guardian Journalist detained[/url]
Live reaction [url= http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction ]here[/url]
Is anyone actually surprised that the laws are abused in this way?
Not in the slightest bit surprised, America said "jump", Cameron et al said "how high? and can we have a nice spike to land on?"
Pretty normal.
[i]The Cabinet Office said the legislation was not intended to outlaw the TUC conference or restrict campaigning activity on policy issues.[/i]
Wasn't intended, but would...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23750845
Is anyone actually surprised that the laws are abused in this way?
Nope. Laws were abused in Northern Ireland for decades but no one seemed to give a shit. So why not try it again?
Exactly what the concerns around the terror laws were about. But we have them now, so all those who said "No problem if you have nothing to hide" can think about how wrong they were at their leisure.
Pretty disgraceful behaviour, but then I don't expect anything more from them. Eg wasting millions having police sat 24/7 outside an Embassy, searching everyone who comes out in case it's Julian Assange. They're determined to make him suffer, legal or not. In fact I'm surprised we've not just stormed the Embassy by now.
Even our local councils use them to spy on us. Once governments grant powers for on thing then they can be used for others. Those powers are never taken got rid of when an opposition final makes it to government, they me object while out of power but they are far to useful. This is how we unknowingly stroll into a police statue.
See loads of posts to this thread with the outrage of what is going regarding this legislation. Yep that's right, no one is really interested and those in power know it and use it. Now if it was who won stricktlyXnotalent that would be different.
because everyone knows people with same sex partners that are not uk born are an obvious terrorist risk and a danger to daily mail readers around the uk.
Now if they where xfactoring in the jungle while dancing on ice, with big brother watching, then plebs would care and respond
if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.
if you tell the world about what we hide you and anyone you know should be very worried.
Is anyone actually surprised that the laws are abused in this way?
Nope. Laws were abused in Northern Ireland for decades but no one seemed to give a shit. So why not try it again?
Too true. Bloody shameful.
Pretty normal.The Cabinet Office said the legislation was not intended to outlaw the TUC conference or restrict campaigning activity on policy issues.
Wasn't intended, but would...
Wow, just wow. Banning dissenting campaigns 12 months before an election.
So much for democracy.
This is really really wrong everyone responsible from the arresting officers up the chain to the person who initiated it should lose their jobs and their pensions.
Talking about it on the radio today and Louise Mensch pops up to say that it was fair and not an abuse of powers, WTF has Louise Mensch got to do with it, ex MP lives in New York.......... is she a well known expert of this type of legal matter?
Also claims from the Guardian editor that people from GCHQ were in his building breaking hard drives to deny access to the information, if that is true then we are in troubling times.
I have no problem with his detention. He's well known as being more than just the partner of the Guardian journo who is known to have received classified papers from Snowdon. He also works to assist him and in this case was making a journey having met with a film maker in Germany. It was reasonable to assume he might be a courier in this case.
Hearing his partner, a foreign national, bang on about how he's going to undermine and attack the UK even more aggressively justifies the action even more.
undermine and attack
You mean expose the dirty secrets done in our name?
The whole thing stinks although none of the main parties will do anything about it apart from the usual grandstanding. If I were of a more conspiratorial bent I'd be looking at the latest royal baby news as a diversionary tactic to get this story off the front pages..
well ask yourselves who brought these laws in and why, terrorisem.
It makes you wonder what sort of journalist could fly into the uk carrying info that is being used to embarrass the state and not be searched. Don't agree with but if you are going up against some of the worlds most powerful organisations you should not be so nieve as to think they will play be the rules, when the state breaking the rules is what you are reporting on. That Mench women was pointing this out correctly but from an angle that I don't agree with.
Also claims from the Guardian editor that people from GCHQ were in his building breaking hard drives to deny access to the information, if that is true then we are in troubling times.
What makes that all the more laughable is that the Guardian are using an Amercan journalist publishing in US and Brazil to avoid the restrictions that our officials are trying to enforce. Someone needs reminding about King Canute (either version of the tale will do).
what if this bloke had been moving information that might have had an impact on your personal security? what if he'd had a list of names and addresses of people who have supported our security forces clandestinely.
he had a solicitor with him for 8.5 of the 9 hours i cant see much wrong with that. that Lucas woman was held for 6 hours without charge for simply peaceful protest (alegedly)
Its interesting reading this given the current laws they are pushing through in New Zealand (where im living) around the GCSB Bill allowing the government to spy of NZers. The prime minister seems to be trying to drum up fear in people that we are at risk of a terrorist attack. The ridiculous thing is that the country is too small and inconsequential a target for terrorists.
The ridiculous thing is that the country is too small and inconsequential a target for terrorists.
Tell that to Fernando Pereira.
The ridiculous thing is that the country is too small and inconsequential a target for terrorists.
French secret service excepted
more here:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-08-19/uk-government-pulverizes-guardian-hard-disks-snowden-retaliation-says-theres-no-need
twas quite good until it went all "Godwin".
Its interesting reading this given the current laws they are pushing through in New Zealand (where im living) around the GCSB Bill allowing the government to spy of NZers. The prime minister seems to be trying to drum up fear in people that we are at risk of a terrorist attack. The ridiculous thing is that the country is too small and inconsequential a target for terrorists.
Which shows exactly how little you know about it. FWIW I work in security and intelligence and have done for 20 years both in the UK and NZ. Why are people surprised about something that has been going on forever whether you like or not ?
well at least they let him go alive
(the last time I recall the police stopping a Brazillian using draconian anti-terror laws they held him down, executed him and then colluded to lie about it afterwards)
I suppose its a risk that goes with the job- he was effectively a journalist on the guardians payroll- but its blatantly an abuse of the original law
deafening silence from the Limp Dems on this one too
if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.
if you tell the world about what we hide you and anyone you know should be very worried.
What he says
I'm surprised they've been so open in their misuse of the terrorism law.
Is that a deliberate? or just a bad decision?
One just hopes that the Grauniad were smart enough to arrange backups beyond UK jurisdiction.
if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about.
FFS that is the most ridiculous statement you ever hear. If the government never ever abuse their power or make mistakes and miscarriages of "justice" never happen you might have a point. As he was not charged, he had done nothing, yet he was subjected to this. The case shoots your [ and i use it in the loosest possible sense of the word] argument in the foot
what if this bloke had been moving information that might have had an impact on your personal security?
What if he had a gun and was a baby eater? He was not and he was innocent of any terrorism offence hence the debate. Detaining a journalist under terrorism legislation is a tad draconian, would you not say, in a free world
what if he'd had a list of names and addresses of people who have supported our security forces clandestinely.
What on him that he forget tp store electronically in some way - what sort of shit spy is he meant to have been then?
he had a solicitor with him for 8.5 of the 9 hours i cant see much wrong with that.
The lack of charges perhaps? You know no cause etc
two wrong dont make a rightthat Lucas woman was held for 6 hours without charge for simply peaceful protest
What if he had a gin and was a bay eater? He was not hence the debate.
Double gin and bay leaf ?
deafening silence from the Limp Dems on this one too
I assume they approve...
I edited it before I saw the comment as it was amongst my worst
One just hopes that the Grauniad were smart enough to arrange backups beyond UK jurisdiction.
Given they are the No #1 UK stop off for whistle blowers, I suspect they have a reasonably sophisticated system - probably not using the internet given that their fibre feed is probably routed directly to GCHQ.....
Now that it's widely known about, they need to enshrine it in lawWhich shows exactly how little you know about it. FWIW I work in security and intelligence and have done for 20 years both in the UK and NZ. Why are people surprised about something that has been going on forever whether you like or not ?
I'm sure pretty much anyone you asked would believe that there are other abuses of power that remain unexposed
If I were a whistleblower the gruniad would be well down on my list to leak to. As long as thirty years ago they cravenly gave in to govt pressure and handed back the papers that Sarah Tisdale had leaked to them. The identifying codes from those papers were used to convict and imprison Ms Tisdale. They could have shredded the files and burned the ashes, but they didn't. For that reason, the paper has never recovered in my estimation.
My thought too, but I couldn't remember her name. They showed a naive trust in the letter of the law back then, I wonder if they've grown up a bit.
Who else to turn to?
Most of the press would happily not just co-operate with the security forces without question, they would paint a pretty picture of how they had stood up against terrorism and helped jail dangerous threats to our well being.
There was interesting comment on Bruce Schneier's blog at the weekend, on the customary squid post. Guido Fawkes has taken a view, could they come knocking at his door?
I have no problem with his detention. He's well known as being more than just the partner of the Guardian journo who is known to have received classified papers from Snowdon.
Being in receipt of classified documents doesn't make him a terrorist, and there's little doubt that the reporting of those documents is in the public interest.
This is a simple case of the state abusing its power.
There's comment on Jack of Kent's blog, most of which goes straight over my head, questioning the legality of the detention.
apparently the guardia are suing the home office for misuse of schedule7
thought this was ironic...
@DannyShawBBCThe paper wants police to stop examining confiscated electronic items from Miranda & [b]agree not to disclose or share details with others[/b]
so they (guardian) want to keep the secret stuff they(government) now have secret?
This is a simple case of the state abusing its power.
+1
Whilst it all sounds a bit dogdy I do have some sympathy with the authorities. If the man was suspected of carrying illegally aquired classifield documents then it hardly comes as a suprise. I do find the way some journalist seen to think the law doesnt apply to them as they are above it all.
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.