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

[geriatrickid]

Miranda was a foreign national transiting the UK. As such, he was subject to the laws that allow such visitors to be searched.

But he was not detained under any applicable law. He was detained under an inapplicable anti-terrorism law. The abuse of anti-terrorism laws is what the fuss should be about.

It is your view that the law was inapplicable. The UK government solicitors who authorized the interdiction disagree. Yes, the anti terrorism law was applied, however, I believe that the position was that it was the most appropriate law with which to deal with the courier. The man was believed to be transporting illegally obtained confidential documents that could be used to harm national interests. He's fortunate he didn't try that with Russian documents in an ally of Russia otherwise he'd have disappeared never to be heard from again.

[Sing_Sling]

Mania,

As far as I can see from what I have read, the only illegal activity the NSA have been accused of is recording conversations which took place solely within the USA.

Which they have denied doing.

But I may have missed something; I have obviously not devoted as much study to this as you. So please enlighten me: exactly what other illegal activities has the NSA been accused of?

Direct answer this time, if you'd be so kind.

Maybe you should direct that question at Merkel and others who expressed grave concerns that USA was breaking laws in EU -- just one example.

What makes you think they'd care about foreigners, given how they treat their own . . . irrespective of how mnay examples you show.

7b7 - you're caught out being dead wrong and mass-posts don't make you right

[manarak]

Miranda was a foreign national transiting the UK. As such, he was subject to the laws that allow such visitors to be searched.

But he was not detained under any applicable law. He was detained under an inapplicable anti-terrorism law. The abuse of anti-terrorism laws is what the fuss should be about.

It is your view that the law was inapplicable. The UK government solicitors who authorized the interdiction disagree. Yes, the anti terrorism law was applied, however, I believe that the position was that it was the most appropriate law with which to deal with the courier. The man was believed to be transporting illegally obtained confidential documents that could be used to harm national interests. He's fortunate he didn't try that with Russian documents in an ally of Russia otherwise he'd have disappeared never to be heard from again.

" I believe that the position was that it was the most appropriate law with which to deal with the courier."

which is scandalous.

Either a law applies or not. if no law applies, the action of police was illegal. period.

Police can't just go and arrest people with no legal basis and try to make it fit a remotely related paragraph.

Police state?

It is also worth to note that Lord Falconer of Thoroton, Peer of the Kingdom and former Lord Chancellor who helped to promulgate the UK anti-terror laws also shares that point of view:

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

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been deleted. Please stay on the topic of the thread. Picking out another persons example only will likely get your post deleted if it is off-topic.

[lomatopo]

If Mr. Miranda was doing something illegal, like being in possession of stolen property, then he should have been arrested and charged.

If Mr. Miranda was detained under Schedule 7 Anti-Terrorism provisions the authorities should just publicly admit that the he was suspected of terrorism.

Since the British authorities have done neither we are left to assume that their actions were meant to serve other purposes, other than displaying incompetence of course.

[FDog]

Miranda was a foreign national transiting the UK. As such, he was subject to the laws that allow such visitors to be searched.

But he was not detained under any applicable law. He was detained under an inapplicable anti-terrorism law. The abuse of anti-terrorism laws is what the fuss should be about.

It is your view that the law was inapplicable. The UK government solicitors who authorized the interdiction disagree. Yes, the anti terrorism law was applied, however, I believe that the position was that it was the most appropriate law with which to deal with the courier. The man was believed to be transporting illegally obtained confidential documents that could be used to harm national interests. He's fortunate he didn't try that with Russian documents in an ally of Russia otherwise he'd have disappeared never to be heard from again.

Well that's not quite right. Not all the govt solicitors agree. The watchdog has concerns and has asked for an explanation. Also, the home office said it was a police matter and they didn't give any opinion/advice on the matter. Purely a police matter. So no lawyers made any recommendation as to the legality at the time. Police made that decision by themselves.

Edited August 22, 2013 by FDog

[7by7]

Really.

BTW; do you know the meaning of the word "unreasonable?"

Your fourth amendment prevents unreasonable searches etc., not all.

You have plenty of time to come up with an answer; I'm off for the day.

I would think that the NSA intercepting your email to your wife saying you are taking little Johnny to basketball to be unreasonable.

But they are intercepting it.

Intercepting it? Maybe.

Recording it or otherwise acting on it? They have denied doing so.

Unless the email says "After taking little Johnny to basket ball I'll be planting the bomb at the shopping mall!"

[7by7]

Really.

BTW; do you know the meaning of the word "unreasonable?"

Your fourth amendment prevents unreasonable searches etc., not all.

You have plenty of time to come up with an answer; I'm off for the day.

I would think that the NSA intercepting your email to your wife saying you are taking little Johnny to basketball to be unreasonable.

But they are intercepting it.

Normally most folks would feel the shotgun approach of considering every US citizen ( as well as a few other countries citizens )

all guilty until proven innocent is a bit unreasonable.

Perhaps unreasonable is the wrong word? Maybe drunk? Drunk with ill gotten power is more appropriate I think

If you want to catch terrorists communicating with each other then you have to scan all communications.

This is not an assumption of guilt; it is a sensible approach.

Remember that unless a communication contains certain key words or phrases no human being ever sees it; they're scanned automatically and discarded.

In many ways it's the same as using cctv in public places such as shopping malls. Thousands of innocent people are recorded each day as they pass the cameras, but the recordings are only looked at if a crime is committed and the evidence of the recording is required.

Maybe you are one of those people who object to that as well?

[7by7]

7by7 linked to a favourable report written by this guy

http://www.propublica.org/site/author/sebastian_rotella

from which I quote....

He served most recently as a national security correspondent in Washington, D.C

So he is - in effect - paid to promote NSA's work ...

How so?

Correspondent in this sense means a journalist specialising in one location or area; not a paid advocate for an organisation!

I am sure you are familiar with the old adage about He who pays the piper calls the tune

Where does it say he was being paid by the NSA?

Correspondents at Old Trafford are not paid by Manchester United, they are paid by whichever news organisation they are working for or they sell their story to!

[manarak]

If you want to catch terrorists communicating with each other then you have to scan all communications.

This is not an assumption of guilt; it is a sensible approach.

Remember that unless a communication contains certain key words or phrases no human being ever sees it; they're scanned automatically and discarded.

In many ways it's the same as using cctv in public places such as shopping malls. Thousands of innocent people are recorded each day as they pass the cameras, but the recordings are only looked at if a crime is committed and the evidence of the recording is required.

Maybe you are one of those people who object to that as well?

For catching terrorists, it's quite ok to use covert and illegal surveillance.

In my opinion, the surveillance must stay strictly illegal to protect privacy in all cases that aren't relevant to national security.

Intelligence and counterterrorism agencies are allowed to use information obtained illegally and also to conduct illegal surveillance. I have no issue with that.

I do have issues with making laws making such surveillance legal.

Then - once the laws are in place, how do we control that the information gathered is used unly in matters of national security?

According to these articles, the information is already being misused for law enforcement in drugs and tax matters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-snowden-216/

Moreover, this particular point raises a lot of concerns:

This information, according to a NSA official, as quoted by Reuters, “is not used for domestic criminal law enforcement.”

Which means that foreigners are fair game for the NSA to spy on and they can use anything to blackmail people or smear anybody they don't like, for example foreign politicians who are or could become disturbing for the USA, or foreign business executives.

[wolf5370]

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.

And of course there is no such freedom in the UK - indeed, 'D' notices can be issued to block media in the country reporting anything - and super-injunctions make it illegal even to mention their is an injunction.

A state has the right to protect its secrets - spilling of those secrets can be construed as an act of assisting terrorism and thus is covered by the 2000 terrorism act (maybe they should count themselves lucky Labour's twice tried bill that failed the House of Lords would have granted holding for up to 90 days without charge). As it is the report is slightly wrong in that under the provisions of the act the police can get a court order to extend up to 7 days without charge - as this power was not used, it seems reasonable to believe that the main interest was documents being smuggled out of the country in those held electronic devices (probably in some basement in Thames House now being hardware checked byte by byte). If such is found, it could lead to a heavy charge.

The 66 year old UKUSA Silent Partners (USA(1)/UK(2)/Aus(2)/NZ(2)/Can(2)/Jap(3)/S.Kor(3)/etc) are just that - the "First Party" (NSA) was hit, this will/can/has hurt the "second" (GCHQ/DSD/GCSB/CCSE) and "third" parties - they will stick together - its what the whole game is about, sharing intelligence and protecting it (and watching each other's backs).

[wolf5370]

If you want to catch terrorists communicating with each other then you have to scan all communications.

This is not an assumption of guilt; it is a sensible approach.

Remember that unless a communication contains certain key words or phrases no human being ever sees it; they're scanned automatically and discarded.

In many ways it's the same as using cctv in public places such as shopping malls. Thousands of innocent people are recorded each day as they pass the cameras, but the recordings are only looked at if a crime is committed and the evidence of the recording is required.

Maybe you are one of those people who object to that as well?

For catching terrorists, it's quite ok to use covert and illegal surveillance.

In my opinion, the surveillance must stay strictly illegal to protect privacy in all cases that aren't relevant to national security.

Intelligence and counterterrorism agencies are allowed to use information obtained illegally and also to conduct illegal surveillance. I have no issue with that.

I do have issues with making laws making such surveillance legal.

Then - once the laws are in place, how do we control that the information gathered is used unly in matters of national security?

According to these articles, the information is already being misused for law enforcement in drugs and tax matters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-snowden-216/

Moreover, this particular point raises a lot of concerns:

This information, according to a NSA official, as quoted by Reuters, “is not used for domestic criminal law enforcement.”

Which means that foreigners are fair game for the NSA to spy on and they can use anything to blackmail people or smear anybody they don't like, for example foreign politicians who are or could become disturbing for the USA, or foreign business executives.

At some point we have to trust these agencies (those of our home country) in that they will, but for a few bad apples, look in the best interests of the country and follow the law as much as is possible. To do otherwise is to cripple them and remove their effectiveness. There is simply too much information for them to care about low priority stuff - it is of not interest to them. The fact that they can find leverage against foreign politicians is well and good in reality - and I am sure is behind many things such as getting kidnap victims out, forcing return of criminals and so on. It would be a waste to slur someone on a whim - knowledge is power, and like a bullet (or ICBM) is most effective not being put to direct use (once fired it is spent and the damage is limited and causes much noise that needs explaining). Like Jack said, "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns..." - swap "guns" for "Secrets" and we have a winner!

[7by7]

Miranda was a foreign national transiting the UK. As such, he was subject to the laws that allow such visitors to be searched.

But he was not detained under any applicable law. He was detained under an inapplicable anti-terrorism law. The abuse of anti-terrorism laws is what the fuss should be about.

He was detained under the anti terrorism law because he was suspected of carrying classified material which if made public would aid terrorists in their activities.

If he wasn't, if he was innocent then all he had to do was show the contents of his various files to the police and he would have been on his way.

But he refused to.

Why? What was he hiding?

As the police were unable to open the files within the 9 hours allowed by law they had no evidence with which to charge him or detain him so had to release him.

In some ways it's a bit like being stopped by customs.

Often they stop someone because they are acting suspiciously or they have received information. Just as, if not more, often they stop people randomly; which once happened to me at Heathrow.

Pulled over, asked the usual questions, asked to open my bags. I cooperated and after a search through my bags was allowed on my way after about 10 minutes.

Had I acted like Miranda and refused to cooperate I would have been there a lot longer.

Being a journalist is no excuse for breaking the law.

American readers may be unfamiliar with the News of the World phone hacking scandal.

Should they have been allowed to get away with it using the excuse of press freedom?

It now looks as if there is going to be a judicial review into this; so we will soon know the rights and wrongs of his detention.

[wolf5370]

*Deleted posts edited out*

What has being an American got to do with it? It was in the UK and performed under valid UK law - American rights do not come into it at all either.

It is hardly a shotgun/scatter approach either - it is a "Gold-Panning" approach - suck in all data, relevant and not, and sift for nuggets. It is no different perhaps than checking everyone's passports at customs - the vast majority will be legal, but it hard to spot the others, so check all. Or checking signatures. Having pin numbers. and so on - this is the information age, bad people use it as well as the good - in the old days of beat bobbies (cops on every street corner walking their beat) - faces were sifted by those coppers as was unusual activity of others in the street - these days we can check CCTV and save on policing costs (and give better evidence rather than cop's word against accused). In the UK police have no right to check phones or emails without a warrant to do so, from a court - the security services are different, their targets are different and they can not spot terrorist by taking a walk in Whitechapel.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[wolf5370]

*Deleted posts edited out*

//EDIT: Saw your post above - and understand the sidetrack - edit over

You are still making the mistake of thinking that American rights are relevant at all. No one is "bending over"[sIC] as there is nothing to be bent over, or to accept - the police have the right in the UK and the traveller has no first amendment (or any single piece of paper called a constitution either) to fight with. You could just as easily bring in a discussion of laws in any country - we could say well under Zimbabwe's laws he could be beaten until he confessed - but it is not relevant.

Britain has never accepted a single carte-blanche set of rules to govern by - hence there is no constitution (and why a European one was so strongly apposed there) - it has one of the oldest single legal systems in the world and various agreements such as the Magna Carta etc on which to base a millennia of legal precedent. It is a different system, but no less valid, laws are organic and precedent changes them over time and defines new legislation. Any laws/acts can be over turned (indeed it would take just one such action to withdraw from Europe, Human Rights agreements and so on) as required - there can never be the issues that come with constitutional law (in that it is so hard to amend - and practically impossible to remove - perhaps the second amendment being one bone of contention).

Freedom - even freedom of speech - does not exist anywhere - Under the Patriots Acts of course, some serious butting against the first amendment have occurred - especially early on. There is no populated country in the world that openly allows its secrets to be broadcast by its trusted state employees that have sworn not to do just that - none would let a citizen (or a foreigner on its soil) spout it without serious repercussions (in the UK D notices can stop the media - in the US its harder to stop the media, but the source would be hunted and face those issues - and I would suggest the media would feel extreme pressure against going public with anything damaging). THERE IS NO FREEDOM - THERE IS NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH.

Edited August 22, 2013 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[manarak]

For catching terrorists, it's quite ok to use covert and illegal surveillance.

In my opinion, the surveillance must stay strictly illegal to protect privacy in all cases that aren't relevant to national security.

Intelligence and counterterrorism agencies are allowed to use information obtained illegally and also to conduct illegal surveillance. I have no issue with that.

I do have issues with making laws making such surveillance legal.

Then - once the laws are in place, how do we control that the information gathered is used unly in matters of national security?

According to these articles, the information is already being misused for law enforcement in drugs and tax matters:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennifergranick/2013/08/14/nsa-dea-irs-lie-about-fact-that-americans-are-routinely-spied-on-by-our-government-time-for-a-special-prosecutor-2/

http://rt.com/usa/dea-nsa-irs-snowden-216/

Moreover, this particular point raises a lot of concerns:

This information, according to a NSA official, as quoted by Reuters, “is not used for domestic criminal law enforcement.”

Which means that foreigners are fair game for the NSA to spy on and they can use anything to blackmail people or smear anybody they don't like, for example foreign politicians who are or could become disturbing for the USA, or foreign business executives.

At some point we have to trust these agencies (those of our home country) in that they will, but for a few bad apples, look in the best interests of the country and follow the law as much as is possible. To do otherwise is to cripple them and remove their effectiveness. There is simply too much information for them to care about low priority stuff - it is of not interest to them. The fact that they can find leverage against foreign politicians is well and good in reality - and I am sure is behind many things such as getting kidnap victims out, forcing return of criminals and so on. It would be a waste to slur someone on a whim - knowledge is power, and like a bullet (or ICBM) is most effective not being put to direct use (once fired it is spent and the damage is limited and causes much noise that needs explaining). Like Jack said, "Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with guns..." - swap "guns" for "Secrets" and we have a winner!

as long as it's used for that, yes... but these games aren't played nice.

there will be cases like some foreign agencies wanting something the US have in exchange for something they have and which the US need. people will be sacrificed.

finding leverage against foreign politicians is only good when said politicians were up to no good. What if it's the US that are up to no good, as it has been the case more than once in recent history?

There is simply too much information for them to care about low priority stuff - it is of not interest to them.

obviously you don't matter, so it's easy for you to say that.

what if some day you came into a position where you mattered?

for example you are a citizen of a country ridden with homophobia and come into a position to influence the decision of a multibillion dollar project on which Halliburton has bid, and you are conveniently reminded by "a friend" about your earlier intimate contacts with a cute beach boy during your holidays a few years ago and a few messages exchanged on the "anonymous" secondary facebook account you had setup, feeling safe from being recognized...

if you think that won't happen - it already happened in the past.

the US have already used their intelligence services for the profit of private corporations and they will probably do it again.

the big question with the NSA surveillance is "what will the information be used for?" and if the past is any indicator for the future, it doesn't bode well.

[wolf5370]

as long as it's used for that, yes... but these games aren't played nice.

there will be cases like some foreign agencies wanting something the US have in exchange for something they have and which the US need. people will be sacrificed.

finding leverage against foreign politicians is only good when said politicians were up to no good. What if it's the US that are up to no good, as it has been the case more than once in recent history?

There is simply too much information for them to care about low priority stuff - it is of not interest to them.

obviously you don't matter, so it's easy for you to say that.

what if some day you came into a position where you mattered?

for example you are a citizen of a country ridden with homophobia and come into a position to influence the decision of a multibillion dollar project on which Halliburton has bid, and you are conveniently reminded by "a friend" about your earlier intimate contacts with a cute beach boy during your holidays a few years ago and a few messages exchanged on the "anonymous" secondary facebook account you had setup, feeling safe from being recognized...

if you think that won't happen - it already happened in the past.

the US have already used their intelligence services for the profit of private corporations and they will probably do it again.

the big question with the NSA surveillance is "what will the information be used for?" and if the past is any indicator for the future, it doesn't bode well.

I don't doubt this happens at all - in fact I know it has and it will continue to do so. This is the point of oversight committees etc - there has to be some control. In the US it is more likely to happen I guess with so many people having top secret clearance (the numbers are staggering) - such information could easily, and legally, end up in the wrong department and become a weapon - this should be address, there is need for compartmentalizing and need-to-know inter-departmental sharing. It is much less likely in the UK where the departments - even police regional separation - is quite rigid and defined (very unlikely MI6 would be sharing information with a Finance/Trade Minister of specifics of that nature - usually it just comes down to risk assessments with little detail).

The UIS Intelligence system IMO needs a major overhaul anyway - there are dozens (probably hundreds) of little agencies and sub agencies with their own piece of the pie. Over sight is restricted and thus crippled. Too much in fighting and juxtapositioning. This must be simplified with rigid boundaries and requiring oversight and special oversight for cross-agency tasks/investigations - FBI (national policing - UK: Special Branch/Scotland Yard); CIA (externa - UK:MI6); NSA (internal - UK:MI5) and leave it at that. However, I am sure this has been tried several times (I remember it being bounded about) but there are power people involved (with secrets!)

[sustento]

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.

And of course there is no such freedom in the UK - indeed, 'D' notices can be issued to block media in the country reporting anything

'D' notices are advisory requests. They are not legally enforceable and can be ignored by editors any time they choose.

[sustento]

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.

And of course there is no such freedom in the UK - indeed, 'D' notices can be issued to block media in the country reporting anything - and super-injunctions make it illegal even to mention their is an injunction.

A state has the right to protect its secrets - spilling of those secrets can be construed as an act of assisting terrorism and thus is covered by the 2000 terrorism act (maybe they should count themselves lucky Labour's twice tried bill that failed the House of Lords would have granted holding for up to 90 days without charge). As it is the report is slightly wrong in that under the provisions of the act the police can get a court order to extend up to 7 days without charge - as this power was not used, it seems reasonable to believe that the main interest was documents being smuggled out of the country in those held electronic devices (probably in some basement in Thames House now being hardware checked byte by byte). If such is found, it could lead to a heavy charge.

Section 7 of the Terrorism Act is very specific and has powers that are not covered by the rest of the Act. You can be detained for 9 hours without any legal representation whatever. You can be imprisoned for refusing to answer questions. You need to read this:

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

[FDog]

Firstly, Mania, look up the meaning of the word 'argument.'

Secondly, us Brits have lived with the threat of terrorism for far longer than you Americans. Irish terrorism funded in part by duped Americans. Indeed, had I not been unexpectedly delayed at work I would have been with two of my friends in the Horse and Groom in Guildford when the IRA bomb went off.

Despite that, I am not terrified of terrorism; but only a fool would think that it is not a major threat.

If combatting that threat means a faceless NSA employee reads a couple of my emails that doesn't bother me; but I have nothing to hide.

I have nothing to hide either, sort of.

I don't want anyone reading what I email to my gf. I don't want anyone knowing what porn sites I visit. You know, just in case someone decides to pluck my name out of thin air, under torture, and say I'm a terrorist. Then all that stuff I prefer to be private can be put into the public to make me look like I'm not the saint I say I am.

I also don't think authorities had any reason to think Miranda was a suspected terrorist. Since when did telling the world that the NSA is collecting data on everyone become a terrorist act? It's not like they have spilled any secrets of specifics of who they consider terrorists etc. All that has been done is to say that ALL data is collected.

And no, irrelevant intercepts are not actually discarded. They are sorted and discarded but are actually still in the system so they can be later retrieved.

[wolf5370]

It's very unlikely any "one" would - these things are automated searches. They find a key word, then more of your communications are checked - more keywords - then it may hit a human's desk. Before that, and in the vast amount of times, it is "read" (scanned) by software - just as your spell checker just did (are you embarrassed the spell checker in your browser saw you type in "Octogenarian Foot Fetish"?). Even if you were pulled out (because of many suspicious terms used and sender/recipient locations/names / etc) then they would not make it public - they would use it to trap you or your contacts - may be even to protect you (certainly in the possibility of terrorist grooming).

They didn't say he was a suspected terrorist - they simply held him on the provision of the act pertaining to terrorism. If I sold saltpetre to an extremist group that could (in likely be) used to make explosives - I could still be arrested to see if In was aiding terrorism.

Though I agree that such information is unlikely to be discarded as much as archived - that makes sense too, as accumulation of evidence may be necessary and in the case of sleeper cells may not come in day to day and patterns may well be over much greater timespans than one thinks (and again automation is the key here too - and they still don't care about your foot fetish)

Edited August 22, 2013 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[mania]

Aside from looking for terrorist communications one needs to realize that

having the ability to see any & all communications gives great power.

It may seem far fetched now but looking back at the financial crisis of 2008 from which none have yet recovered.

One would see what large banks alone did with information they had.

It is not such a stretch given the f^ up's at the NSA that a programmer might scan for different terms

That information is literally worth millions.

Also recently some private secure email services were forced out of business rather than compromise their services by complying

with US demands for access to their servers. These companies did not just hold emails of average Joe Blows

but even heads of states. What gives anyone the right to deny those folks their privacy?

It can go on & on all under the guise of temporary security. They will promise that a day will come that they will

no longer need to do such things once this war on terror is won. Yet they build billion dollar facilities in Utah.

They are not doing that because they think they will win shortly

But like the war on drugs it will never be won this way & they know it even now. They care not as it is business

This so called war on terror is the perfect war. It has no end & never will. There is no government to surrender & end it.

The shadow figures will always tell you they lurk ready to attack & they hate you for your freedoms.

Yet who is taking away the freedoms in reality?

If they truly wanted to end the war on terror they would stop their own terrorizing in other countries.

Call it a day & go home & defend their own country if they really believe there is a threat.

As this one which they cannot afford anyway has no solution

Edited August 22, 2013 by mania

[lomatopo]

He was detained under the anti terrorism law because he was suspected of carrying classified material which if made public would aid terrorists in their activities.

If he wasn't, if he was innocent then all he had to do was show the contents of his various files to the police and he would have been on his way.

But he refused to.

Why? What was he hiding?

As the police were unable to open the files within the 9 hours allowed by law they had no evidence with which to charge him or detain him so had to release him.

If the British authorities believed Mr. Miranda was carrying classified materials then they could have held him, or arrested and charged him, while they determined the contents of the items he was carrying. I believe there are provisions in the Act for further detention and/or arrest.

It seems like it is very easy for the State to claim almost any activity it deems as such can be construed to "give comfort to terrorists", which seems to also mean one can be assumed to be a terrorist.

A lot of people seem to think Mr. Miranda was "hiding something", in which case it was irresponsible of the authorities to release him.

Transporting classified materials by courier, especially by one widely known to be associated with Mr. Greenwald, seems to me unlikely. Regular mail, electronic mail, Dropbox, other file sharing techniques would seem to do the trick. Additionally, I assume that Mr. Greenwald, and Mr. Miranda, were aware of the possibility of being stopped and examined if transiting the U.K. so I guess I'd be shocked if Mr. Miranda were really hiding something which would aid the terrorists?

I've got to believe that most terrorist organizations are well aware of the nearly universal surveillance used by the various State Security organizations, especially if they've seen a TV show or motion picture in the last 10 years. I think more details might have been revealed on an episode of "Spooks", or "24", than by Mr. Snowden? There is nothing which Mr. Snowden has revealed to date, which seems to me to have aided the enemy.

In the U.S. we have a long, and sordid, history of the State Security Apparatus overstepping their authority and violating the rights of citizens. Socialist and union organizers were targeted in the early 20th century, as where Civil Rights leaders, Student activists and anti-war protesters in the 1950's - 1970's. Even political opponents were targeted. Each time whistle-blowers stepped forward, or the Fourth Estate worked to expose these illegal and immoral activities by the State, the public was shocked and changes were made.

Taking the CCTV example, everyone can see the CCTV cameras, and understand that in most public spaces their activities can and are being recorded and observed. We can't see, or hear, someone listening in on phone calls, or reading our email, or tracking our movements, or peering into our bank accounts, or looking over our tax returns. Yes, I now just assume that anything or everything I write, speak, say or do may be used against me, but it just creeps me out that a small group of terrorists have basically brought us to our knees, and forced us to compromise so many of our values, beliefs and rights, all in ways that no other enemy has before.

It seems to me that without whistle-blowers, and the Fourth Estate, there will be no checks on the State Security organizations, and as well-intentioned as they might be, there will always be the opportunity for them to exceed their reach. In the U.S., the Executive, Legislative and even Judicial branches of government seem unable, or unwilling, to curb the surveillance of its own citizens.

I guess if terrorism is such a huge threat to our way of life, and the only way to protect us is to "gold pan" everything, that the U.S. Constitution should be so amended to allow the State to monitor everything, and that we should give up any remaining vestiges of privacy, assumption of innocence, requirements of probable cause and being safe in our persons from all forms of searches?

Edited August 22, 2013 by lomatopo

[Scott]

A lot of off-topic, inflammatory posts and replies have been deleted. The nationality of posters is of no concern or relevance to this topic.

[jayboy]

More on the deceit and lies of The Guardian.

http://wp.me/p3ah7z-dV

[Publicus]

More on the deceit and lies of The Guardian.

http://wp.me/p3ah7z-dV

You link us to a comprehensive and thorough piece.

And by the account in the link, the UK and U.S. authorities may well have the first real evidence that Greenwald is, himself, actually and in fact, engaged in espionage.

If Greenwald started out simply reporting the information Snowden showed him, it would appear at this point no longer to be the case.

It looks like Greenwald himself is cooperating with Snowden in the dissemination and distribution of vital national and global security information of the United States and its allies. In other words, even if Greenwald didn't start out engaged in espionage, he now appears to be presently engaged in espionage against the United States and the United Kingdom and the allies of each.

If that were the case, First Amendment and other free press laws don't protect a journalist turned espionage agent against his own country and its allies.

Greenwald said a few days ago he was going to hammer the UK based on information he had from Snowden. After Snowden provided stolen national security information to the CCP-PRC and then to Russia, I have no doubt Greenwald means to injure and damage UK national and global security operations abroad that are being carried out to protect the homeland and to cooperate with allied governments.

And what is the law if a newspaper itself becomes complicit in espionage activities? The Guardian said it hired David Miranda but that Miranda is not a contract employee and certainly not a journalist. Then for what purpose was David Miranda hired, and for what period of time? The Guardian's role in this calls for more and greater scrutiny.

[wolf5370]

He was detained under the anti terrorism law because he was suspected of carrying classified material which if made public would aid terrorists in their activities.

If he wasn't, if he was innocent then all he had to do was show the contents of his various files to the police and he would have been on his way.

But he refused to.

Why? What was he hiding?

As the police were unable to open the files within the 9 hours allowed by law they had no evidence with which to charge him or detain him so had to release him.

If the British authorities believed Mr. Miranda was carrying classified materials then they could have held him, or arrested and charged him, while they determined the contents of the items he was carrying. I believe there are provisions in the Act for further detention and/or arrest.

It seems like it is very easy for the State to claim almost any activity it deems as such can be construed to "give comfort to terrorists", which seems to also mean one can be assumed to be a terrorist.

A lot of people seem to think Mr. Miranda was "hiding something", in which case it was irresponsible of the authorities to release him.

Transporting classified materials by courier, especially by one widely known to be associated with Mr. Greenwald, seems to me unlikely. Regular mail, electronic mail, Dropbox, other file sharing techniques would seem to do the trick. Additionally, I assume that Mr. Greenwald, and Mr. Miranda, were aware of the possibility of being stopped and examined if transiting the U.K. so I guess I'd be shocked if Mr. Miranda were really hiding something which would aid the terrorists?

I've got to believe that most terrorist organizations are well aware of the nearly universal surveillance used by the various State Security organizations, especially if they've seen a TV show or motion picture in the last 10 years. I think more details might have been revealed on an episode of "Spooks", or "24", than by Mr. Snowden? There is nothing which Mr. Snowden has revealed to date, which seems to me to have aided the enemy.

In the U.S. we have a long, and sordid, history of the State Security Apparatus overstepping their authority and violating the rights of citizens. Socialist and union organizers were targeted in the early 20th century, as where Civil Rights leaders, Student activists and anti-war protesters in the 1950's - 1970's. Even political opponents were targeted. Each time whistle-blowers stepped forward, or the Fourth Estate worked to expose these illegal and immoral activities by the State, the public was shocked and changes were made.

Taking the CCTV example, everyone can see the CCTV cameras, and understand that in most public spaces their activities can and are being recorded and observed. We can't see, or hear, someone listening in on phone calls, or reading our email, or tracking our movements, or peering into our bank accounts, or looking over our tax returns. Yes, I now just assume that anything or everything I write, speak, say or do may be used against me, but it just creeps me out that a small group of terrorists have basically brought us to our knees, and forced us to compromise so many of our values, beliefs and rights, all in ways that no other enemy has before.

It seems to me that without whistle-blowers, and the Fourth Estate, there will be no checks on the State Security organizations, and as well-intentioned as they might be, there will always be the opportunity for them to exceed their reach. In the U.S., the Executive, Legislative and even Judicial branches of government seem unable, or unwilling, to curb the surveillance of its own citizens.

I guess if terrorism is such a huge threat to our way of life, and the only way to protect us is to "gold pan" everything, that the U.S. Constitution should be so amended to allow the State to monitor everything, and that we should give up any remaining vestiges of privacy, assumption of innocence, requirements of probable cause and being safe in our persons from all forms of searches?

Although he was released after the 9 hours, his electronic gadgets were not. I would suggest they were the real aim - and 9 hours of questioning a bonus if he cracked. As to using DropBox etc, he would have needed a device on which to upload it - bet your bottom dollar he this is being checked on each device - unlikely he would have used an internet café (they are few and far between these days anyway) - much more likely he would upload from his phone or laptop and them delete. Modern HDDs and solid state disks are pretty secure in that they don't leave ghosts, but there are other tracks left that can help find if things have been uploaded.

[sustento]

More on the deceit and lies of The Guardian.

http://wp.me/p3ah7z-dV

Some of the remarks are more interesting than the original blog post - those of TomMW for example.

[lannarebirth]

More on the deceit and lies of The Guardian.

http://wp.me/p3ah7z-dV

You link us to a comprehensive and thorough piece.

He linked to a blog about women's fashion. Incisive!

[Publicus]

More on the deceit and lies of The Guardian.

http://wp.me/p3ah7z-dV

You link us to a comprehensive and thorough piece.

He linked to a blog about women's fashion. Incisive!

I see now it can be a strange URL, so here's a better one below with some excerpts of the article.

I had no trouble getting directly to the story, but did have trouble after reading your post above.

The journal's chosen name, "unfashionista" can sometimes confuse search engines. The second time, after I read your post above, I got the page on ladies fashion, howerver, the last item on the page was the story below.

So I would say the link in this post is the direct and more reliable link.

The Smears of Glenn Greenwald and the Guardian – a primer

This was the first clue. It turned out that the Guardian was paying for David Miranda’s flights and that David Miranda was working on the leaks story, making him a journalist. My direct question to Greenwald – and the Guardian – as to whether the Guardian was paying Miranda for his work on the story went unanswered, though Greenwald instead asked me a question of his own.

Here’s where the Guardian admit they were paying for his flights and he was assisting with the story:

This showed that Greenwald was lying by saying that Miranda was merely a spouse – he was actively involved in the story with Greenwald

http://unfashionista.com/2013/08/19/the-lies-of-glenn-greenberg-and-the-guardian-a-short-primer/