Husband of NSA-leak reporter detained under UK anti-terror law

[sustento]

I don't suppose it matters that that encrypted files believed to originate from Snowden were reported to have been found on the Brazilian toyboy, does it?

He was long suspected of being a courier conduit. This is man is involved right up to his plucked eyebrows.

Involved in what? Terrorism or suspected terrorism? He was paid by, therefore employed by, the Guardian. In effect, a journalist.

Greenwald is employed by the Guardian. Miranda isn't. He's Greenwald's partner.

No this was a Guardian lie - Mirinda was being paid by the newspaper.Another lie was that he was not provided with a lawyer - he was, but refused one.

He refused the lawyer that the government wanted to provide and asked for one of his own choosing.

[sustento]

Section 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 can only be used at ports and airports and is a draconian piece of legislation where you basically have no legal rights.

http://www.cumbria.police.uk/about-us/area-structure-services/support-services/schedule-7-terrorism-act-2000

[lomatopo]

Here is a link to the previously referenced article where Lord Falconer, who helped write the Schedule 7 act, says that the Metropolitan police were not warranted in detaining Mr. Miranda.

Lord Falconer: David Miranda Detention Has no Basis in Law

Falconer should know the ins and outs of this particular law considering he helped to introduce the bill to the House of Lords. He explained that the Terrorism Act 2000 is very specific in saying that police only have powers to stop someone to assess whether that are involved "in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism."

Falconer told the Guardian: "I am very clear that this does not apply, either on its terms or in its spirit, to Mr Miranda."

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/500465/20130821/david-miranda-detention-basis-law-lord-falconer.htm

[jayboy]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

1.Yes

2.No

[Sing_Sling]

Bang goes the freedom of the press

Just how far removed do I have to be to avoid being detained under some "special order" - wife of a reporter doing his job is already pretty far out there -- are they going to drag in the wife's mother and grill her too ????????

Seriously - Tony Blair started the rot when he rolled over to the pressure to invade Iraq and things have just gone downhill ever since -- but I guess we're doomed/damned now.....

Well said. It seems those who scream loudest about government intrusion into their lives are quite happy to let government completely intrude into their lives without qualms as long as 'nationalism' is brought into the equation.

Free press is one of the elementary pilars of modern and democratic societies. Press have resources to get information, which ordinary citisens do not have. We all need the press to be able to report the faul play people in power are doing.

This will keep the people in power to respect (or fear) the public. They are, after all, public servants, not the masters.

Yet again, well said.

Isn't this what Yanks always go on about? Being the pillar of democracy and freedom?

Always thought there was something dodgy about Greenwald ever since his TV presentation about Snowden became less like reporting and more like the Glenn Greenwald Show.

Drama queen.

Ah, you knew from the beginning he was playing it . . . how clever of you to portray such vivid 20/20 hindsight

[Sing_Sling]

Shame there was insufficient vigilance to stop confidential information getting in the hands of shysters like Greenwald and Miranda.

We are not talking about men of honour like Woodward and Bernstein are we.

Indeed!!!! Woodward and Bernstein wee regarded as men of honour by all!

Ah, well spoken - though laughable

[jayboy]

Another view on the subject, this time from Dan Hodges (by way of interest the son of Glenda Jackson, the Oscar winning actress and Labour MP).

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231711/why-does-being-a-relative-of-glenn-greenwald-place-you-above-the-law/

[manarak]

Apparently the UK newspaper The Guardian was pressured to destroy all their harddisks with Snowden data on them, and the life partner of their lead journalist for the case was held by UK spooks for 9 hours without charge and without suspicion under terrorism charges.

Ah, the UK, little lapdog of the USA, would do everything for their master.

Anyone saying this is not worrying must be blind. A country whose police force considers journalism to be terrorism has serious problems as a democracy.

The US probably figured that since Putin has forbidden Snowden to reveal more stuff while Snowden is under asylum in Russia, that they could try to prevent publication of the remaining data.

Note to journalists: publish everything you got at once, unless you want to be ordered to destroy your evidence.

That's one view.Here's another:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/louisemensch/100231784/david-miranda-detention-why-i-believe-the-guardian-has-smeared-britains-security-services/

A more complex story than at first appeared.But whatever the interpretation it's becoming very clear now Greenwald has been lying through his teeth.

The linked article contains a lot of bullshit.

For example, this excerpt:

He fled to Hong Kong and it became apparent that he had aimed not just to gain intelligence on the NSA, but to expose American – and British – spy programmes, putting our agents at risk around the world, and aiding some of the world’s most repressive regimes. With the interview Snowden did with the South China Morning Post, he exposed US intel in China. He then dumped his entire stash of files with the anti-American Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has previously stated "so what?" (I paraphrase) if US intel assets are killed from leaks.

I really don't see how exposing unlawful data access by NSA puts the lives of agents at risk.

Quite on the contrary, it could save some lives, for example if terrorists were suspecting some people to be moles, now they have serious doubts on whether the Us gained the information through human intelligence or if the info was acquired by signals intelligence.

The whole article is manipulative and was probably commissioned.

[sustento]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

1.Yes

2.No

We have an 'unwritten' constitution

[Credo]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

1.Yes

2.No

We have an 'unwritten' constitution

Must make amending it rather interesting.

[jayboy]

Apparently the UK newspaper The Guardian was pressured to destroy all their harddisks with Snowden data on them, and the life partner of their lead journalist for the case was held by UK spooks for 9 hours without charge and without suspicion under terrorism charges.

Ah, the UK, little lapdog of the USA, would do everything for their master.

Anyone saying this is not worrying must be blind. A country whose police force considers journalism to be terrorism has serious problems as a democracy.

The US probably figured that since Putin has forbidden Snowden to reveal more stuff while Snowden is under asylum in Russia, that they could try to prevent publication of the remaining data.

Note to journalists: publish everything you got at once, unless you want to be ordered to destroy your evidence.

That's one view.Here's another:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/louisemensch/100231784/david-miranda-detention-why-i-believe-the-guardian-has-smeared-britains-security-services/

A more complex story than at first appeared.But whatever the interpretation it's becoming very clear now Greenwald has been lying through his teeth.

The linked article contains a lot of bullshit.

For example, this excerpt:

He fled to Hong Kong and it became apparent that he had aimed not just to gain intelligence on the NSA, but to expose American – and British – spy programmes, putting our agents at risk around the world, and aiding some of the world’s most repressive regimes. With the interview Snowden did with the South China Morning Post, he exposed US intel in China. He then dumped his entire stash of files with the anti-American Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has previously stated "so what?" (I paraphrase) if US intel assets are killed from leaks.

I really don't see how exposing unlawful data access by NSA puts the lives of agents at risk.

Quite on the contrary, it could save some lives, for example if terrorists were suspecting some people to be moles, now they have serious doubts on whether the Us gained the information through human intelligence or if the info was acquired by signals intelligence.

The whole article is manipulative and was probably commissioned.

I doubt whether you have access to US or British intelligence so your frankly rather whimsical speculation isn't that credible.

I see you believe the article was commissioned.Hmm, that's one to remember next time I read an opinion that differs from mine.

[manarak]

Another view on the subject, this time from Dan Hodges (by way of interest the son of Glenda Jackson, the Oscar winning actress and Labour MP).

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231711/why-does-being-a-relative-of-glenn-greenwald-place-you-above-the-law/

You like to read blogs...

Please weigh Dan Hodges' uninformed opinion against the opinion of Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Peer of the Kingdom and former Lord Chancellor who helped to promulgate the UK anti-terror laws:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/david-miranda-law-detention-heathrow

"David Miranda's detention had no basis in law, says former lord chancellor"

Edited August 21, 2013 by manarak

[jayboy]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

1.Yes

2.No

We have an 'unwritten' constitution

It's true it's often said that Britain has an "unwritten constitution." This is a misleading platitude.Much of the British constitution is to be found in written documents or statutes such as Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Act of Settlement and the Parliament Acts.

It has evolved over the years, the product of historical development rather than deliberate design like for example the US Constitution (itself the remarkable creation of mainly British country gentlemen and businessmen - though I daresay this truth is not expressed quite this way in the US!)

[manarak]

That's one view.Here's another:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/louisemensch/100231784/david-miranda-detention-why-i-believe-the-guardian-has-smeared-britains-security-services/

A more complex story than at first appeared.But whatever the interpretation it's becoming very clear now Greenwald has been lying through his teeth.

The linked article contains a lot of bullshit.

For example, this excerpt:

He fled to Hong Kong and it became apparent that he had aimed not just to gain intelligence on the NSA, but to expose American – and British – spy programmes, putting our agents at risk around the world, and aiding some of the world’s most repressive regimes. With the interview Snowden did with the South China Morning Post, he exposed US intel in China. He then dumped his entire stash of files with the anti-American Wikileaks and Julian Assange, who has previously stated "so what?" (I paraphrase) if US intel assets are killed from leaks.

I really don't see how exposing unlawful data access by NSA puts the lives of agents at risk.

Quite on the contrary, it could save some lives, for example if terrorists were suspecting some people to be moles, now they have serious doubts on whether the Us gained the information through human intelligence or if the info was acquired by signals intelligence.

The whole article is manipulative and was probably commissioned.

I doubt whether you have access to US or British intelligence so your frankly rather whimsical speculation isn't that credible.

I see you believe the article was commissioned.Hmm, that's one to remember next time I read an opinion that differs from mine.

no need to have access to US or UK intelligence to apply logic.

read the comments on this blog article for a good laugh

Edited August 21, 2013 by manarak

[SinglePot]

Shame there was insufficient vigilance to stop confidential information getting in the hands of shysters like Greenwald and Miranda.

We are not talking about men of honour like Woodward and Bernstein are we.

Indeed!!!! Woodward and Bernstein wee regarded as men of honour by all!

Ah, well spoken - though laughable

Yep. So what are Greenwald, the German Film Producer, and the courier *deleted* doing with Snowden's stuff?

Edited August 21, 2013 by Scott

[sustento]

Does The UK have a constitution?

Do they have a Patriot Act?

1.Yes

2.No

We have an 'unwritten' constitution

Must make amending it rather interesting.

That's easy. The Establishment just 'interprets' it to suit their purpose of the moment.

[jayboy]

Here is a useful summary of the pros and cons of the argument from The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/debate/debate-were-border-officials-right-to-detain-david-miranda-under-the-terrorism-act-8778220.html

Extract

"Case for: Bullying

David Miranda is not a journalist. What Glenn Greenwald is doing is not terrorism, and nothing he has published - or authorities at Heathrow have seized - could conceivably aid terrorism. So what do we have here? A pretext to detain a foreign national? Pah. The Home Office has been embarrassed by revelations that it shares data concerning UK citizens with the NSA in America - at a level previously beyond democratic oversight - and it is now cravenly trying to put the rabbit back in the hat. We have a right to know how far state snooping extends. This is a foul and worrying clampdown on necessary reporting.

Case against: Security

If the information held by the Guardian could not - in any way - be damaging to the UK, why do you think UK authorities demanded the destruction of hard drives on Guardian premises? They don't go around doing that kind of thing for fun. David Miranda, we can therefore assume, was carrying highly sensitive and potentially damaging information to Glenn Greenwald. The authorities have every right to intervene. And the excuse that Miranda isn't a journalist? That's just a perfect set-up. Send in a man who can feasibly claim to be a pawn - when in fact his ticket was paid for by the paper."

Edited August 21, 2013 by jayboy

[mania]

And yet if this claimed evidence

( because none will ever know now what was on actually those drives & they may now claim anything they want)

was a breach of any security or laws then why is the man released just under the 9 hour limit?

This is not how the laws were designed to work.

There is no accountability.

They deem themselves above the laws they claim to serve & uphold?

It sure looks like it by all accounts

Damaging information does not equate to unlawful information.

Imagine any other criminal demanding evidence be destroyed

because it is damaging to him?

Yet here we are.

Take notes as at some future point your children or their children may ask

how did this all become what it is today.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[Publicus]

This should be a message to all people who support traitors that they will have a problem. It should also be noted that they cannot hide behind the cloak of 'journalism.'

In the US, journalists often hide behind the "cloak of journalism".

It is called Freedom of the Press and is covered under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment remains quite intact, thanks anyway.

There are two aspects to this.

On the one hand, the Supreme Court ruled in 1972 in the case of Branzburg v. Hayes that a journalist must cooperate with authorities in matters of criminal law. The First Amendment applies to journalists in matters of civil law only.

Edward Snowden is a fugitive from justice since the U.S. Justice Department filed charges in a U.S. District Court alleging violations of the Espionage Act, a serious and high crime.

However, the courts recognize a difference in instances of Snowden and the mass media. Instead of legally viewing Snowden and Glenn Greenwald as peas in a First Amendment pod, the courts instead have established two legal classes of persons in such situations.

The first class consists of persons who have access to the information by virtue of their official position. These people are most often government employees or military personnel with access to classified information, or defense contractors with access to classified information, and are often bound by contractual agreements whereby they agree not to disclose classified information. As such, they are in a position of trust with the government.

The second class of persons are those who have no employment or contractual relationship with the government, and therefore have not exploited a relationship of trust to obtain the national defense information they are charged with disclosing, but instead generally obtained the information from one who has violated such a trust.

This “first class” of person, Edward Snowden, enjoys little or no First Amendment protection for releasing classified information. Protecting that information, after all, is written into his employment terms.

On the other hand, the “second class” of person, Greenwald and the Guardian, enjoy considerable First Amendment protection for passing along such information. Some Constitutional scholars call it the “welcome public debate” clause.

That is, exposing the breadth of the government’s official snooping powers is a matter of extreme public importance, vague protestations by some officials to the contrary notwithstanding.

And it's been long established that news organizations proceed in publishing classified information with the intent “to inform the public of matters pertinent to self-government, not to violate the statute or to injure the government." Intent is the legally determining factor in these instances and cases.

The government nonetheless reserves the right, written in law, to prosecute a journalist for receiving and transmitting classified information under certain circumstances, such as if the person is not in fact a journalist.

So If David Miranda, who is in neither legal class of person, may have been carrying classified United States national and global security information, he would be subject to prosecution in the United States. Inquiring minds wanted to know.

Edited August 21, 2013 by Publicus

[manarak]

Here is a useful summary of the pros and cons of the argument from The Independent

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/debate/debate-were-border-officials-right-to-detain-david-miranda-under-the-terrorism-act-8778220.html

Extract

"Case for: Bullying

David Miranda is not a journalist. What Glenn Greenwald is doing is not terrorism, and nothing he has published - or authorities at Heathrow have seized - could conceivably aid terrorism. So what do we have here? A pretext to detain a foreign national? Pah. The Home Office has been embarrassed by revelations that it shares data concerning UK citizens with the NSA in America - at a level previously beyond democratic oversight - and it is now cravenly trying to put the rabbit back in the hat. We have a right to know how far state snooping extends. This is a foul and worrying clampdown on necessary reporting.

Case against: Security

If the information held by the Guardian could not - in any way - be damaging to the UK, why do you think UK authorities demanded the destruction of hard drives on Guardian premises? They don't go around doing that kind of thing for fun. David Miranda, we can therefore assume, was carrying highly sensitive and potentially damaging information to Glenn Greenwald. The authorities have every right to intervene. And the excuse that Miranda isn't a journalist? That's just a perfect set-up. Send in a man who can feasibly claim to be a pawn - when in fact his ticket was paid for by the paper."

This is much more intelligent than the previously quoted the telegraph's blogs.

One very good question is:

"If the information held by the Guardian could not - in any way - be damaging to the UK, why do you think UK authorities demanded the destruction of hard drives on Guardian premises?"

Another question I would like to ask in connection to it is whether anything damaging to the powers in place is also damaging to the UK and vice-versa?

Do we have an equality such as:

UK intelligence services === UK government === UK politicians === THE UK === the people of the UK ?

I would assert that the government "goes around doing that kind of thing" to protect itself (the government) from being exposed - sometimes the people in the government have common goals with what can be called "the UK", sometimes not.

One has to ponder whether total surveillance of the internet is beneficial to "the people of the UK".

Edited August 21, 2013 by manarak

[chuckd]

From the quoted post...

Mania; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson; but actually no one knows who actually said it.

Actually the real quote was..."Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty".

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" was never claimed to have been said by anybody of note.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who said eternal vigilance is the price of freedom?

From the article...

In fact the words "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty" were uttered by someone of great note, some one we too often forget in our histories of the United States.

The final chapter of Ida B. Wells' autobiography, Crusade for Justice (University of Chicago Press 1970), begins, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." She goes on to argue that although the United States does have some "wonderful institutions" to protect our liberty, we have grown complacent and need to be "alert as the watchman on the wall." (415).

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_said_eternal_vigilance_is_the_price_of_freedom

[Publicus]

If he was carrying something "illegal" then bloody well arrest him and charge him with a crime. Otherwise, <deleted>.

And it still has nothing to do with being stopped under anti-terrorism laws. Even the absurd, knicker-wetting hysteria about terrorism you get from right-wingers on forums like this can't be stretched to include within its definition the act of carrying a thumb drive with details about what the American state does on a daily basis.

When Wikileaks publishes everything Snowden stole, then the terrorists will have it too.

Julian Assange and Vladimir Putin being pals doesn't help either, what with Putin financially supporting Wikileaks (and Wikileaks financially supporting Snowden).

[7by7]

From the quoted post...

Mania; "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." Often attributed to Thomas Jefferson; but actually no one knows who actually said it.

Actually the real quote was..."Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". .....................

Apologies for posting the more well known version of the maxim; glad you have had the satisfaction of correcting me.

[7by7]

We will, of course, never know what acts of terrorism, or other crimes, have been prevented by the surveillance techniques which some object to so much.

Those techniques and the information vital to the public's safety which they uncover must be kept secret; any fool knows that. To bring them into the public domain using the excuse of press freedom is, as Publicus says, giving that information directly to the terrorists.

After 9/11, after 7/7 people were highly critical of both the US and UK governments for not finding out about the attacks in advance and stopping those atrocities.

Many of those same people are now critical of the surveillance techniques now being used in the effort to prevent such atrocities happening again.

If governments do nothing they are accused of negligence; if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

[SinglePot]

The original Snowden story was an opportunity to bash the US government.

The developing Greenwald and Miranda story is now an opportunity to bash the British Government.

If you are so inclined, that is.

Guardian got in bed with Snowden in the beginning. Impossible for them now to present impartial coverage of the saga as it unfolds. They have nailed their colours to the mast, whatever comes out of the woodwork.

Greenwalds motives?

Up to you.

[Publicus]

There are two aspects to Snowden's criminal actions.

One aspect focuses on the domestic activities of the U.S. Government national security agencies. These matters deserve inquiry and review.

One aspect deals with the U.S. Government's surveillance and information gathering activities abroad concerning foreign governments. The focus of U.S. intelligence gathering abroad is on governments that are not friendly towards the United States and its allies, and against terrorists, terrorist organizations, terrorism.

In the first instance Snowden is guilty of performing something of a public service. He's guilty only because he violated his oath and contract.

In the second instance, Snowden is a traitor because he's exposing, and going to expose even more, United States foreign intelligence national security gathering activities conducted against the enemies of the United States.

And now Greenwald hasn't done himself any favors in respect to the laws of the United States with his statements of the past few days that he will reveal more damaging information to the security of both the United States and to the United Kingdom. Greenwald may now be getting himself into precarious legal standing in each country.

The First Amendment law is that a journalist is guilty in these matters only if s/he knows s/he is going to do harm to the national security of the United States. Greenwald's motives, intent, begin now to appear less than honorable.

[mania]

if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

They are accused

Only when what they do is illegal & is in fact destroying our rights.

You should realize

We... as in the USA ...are a Constitutional Republic

Meaning we function with a democratically elected government which is governed by Constitutional Law.

In fact they take an oath of office swearing to uphold that very Constitution

So excuse We The People of the USA if we would like to hold them to the laws upon which our country was built on

& governed by.

IF they have a problem with those laws or a legitimate NEED to change them, there are

legal avenues to follow & get what they need. But they are NOT allowed to just circumvent the Constitution

nor take rights away from lawful citizens even in the pursuit of winning this so called war on terror.

Edited August 21, 2013 by mania

[7by7]

So, mania, can you explain how your rights have been destroyed.

Your emails, phone calls and even posts on this forum may have been automatically scanned for certain key words which if occurring may have meant more detailed examination by an actual human being; but that's it.

I doubt very much that the FBI will be knocking on your door because of your posts on Thai visa!

[lannarebirth]

This should be a message to all people who support traitors that they will have a problem. It should also be noted that they cannot hide behind the cloak of 'journalism.'

In the US, journalists often hide behind the "cloak of journalism".

It is called Freedom of the Press and is covered under the First Amendment.

The First Amendment applies to journalists in matters of civil law only.

Far be it from me to call you a serial liar. Others here can judge that for themselves; but that statement is patently untrue.

[Publicus]

if they do something they are accused of destroying our rights.

They are accused

Only when what they do is illegal & is in fact destroying our rights.

You should realize

We... as in the USA ...are a Constitutional Republic

Meaning we function with a democratically elected government which is governed by Constitutional Law.

In fact they take an oath of office swearing to uphold that very Constitution

So excuse We The People of the USA if we would like to hold them to the laws upon which our country was built on

& governed by.

IF they have a problem with those laws or a legitimate NEED to change them, there are

legal avenues to follow & get what they need. But they are NOT allowed to just circumvent the Constitution

nor take rights away from lawful citizens even in the pursuit of winning this so called war on terror.

Some are focused on the domestic revelations Snowden provided concerning the domestic scope and breadth of U.S. national security services domestically. Snowden performed a public service in this respect, even though he must pay for it because he broke the law doing it. In this respect Snowden is a hero

Others of us focus on the revelations Snowden and Greenwald are making in respect to the U.S. national security services in their operations abroad. The operations abroad gather intelligence and information concerning governments that are not friendly to the United States, and against terrorists, terrorist organizations, terrorism. This is my focus and concern, among others who post here.

I don't accuse those who focus on the domestic revelations Snowden has made.

I expect those who are focused on the domestic revelations not to accuse me when I complain of the national and global security interests of the United States being compromised by Snowden in serious ways, with probably much more to come in the same vein. In this respect, Snowden is a traitor.

Each focus is not mutually exclusive of the interests of the United States. The two focuses are not working at cross purposes. There are two volumes to this book, as it were. It's the same book.