"Snowden journalist's" partner held for 9 hours at Heathrow under anti-terror laws

[Rummy]

So, this was brought to my attention by a mate yesterday as we made our classic terroism jokes. I hadn't heard about it, but reading about it we had quite a discussion. What are the thoughts of people here?

 

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

 

Glenn Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow airport for nine hours

David Miranda, partner of Guardian interviewer of whistleblower Edward Snowden, questioned under Terrorism Act

 

The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

 

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

 

The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.

 

Miranda was released, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

 

Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden.

 

While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights.

 

"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.

 

"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

 

A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We were dismayed that the partner of a Guardian journalist who has been writing about the security services was detained for nearly nine hours while passing through Heathrow airport. We are urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities."

 

A spokesperson for Scotland Yard said: "At 08:05 on Sunday, 18 August a 28-year-old man was detained at Heathrow airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was not arrested. He was subsequently released at 17:00."

 

Scotland Yard refused to be drawn on why Miranda was stopped using powers that enable police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports.

 

There was no comment from the Home Office in relation to the detention. However, there was surprise in political circles and elsewhere. Labour MP Tom Watson said he was shocked at the news and called for it to be made clear if any ministers were involved in authorising the detention.

 

He said: "It's almost impossible, even without full knowledge of the case, to conclude that Glenn Greenwald's partner was a terrorist suspect.

 

"I think that we need to know if any ministers knew about this decision, and exactly who authorised it."

 

"The clause in this act is not meant to be used as a catch-all that can be used in this way."

 

Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers.

 

Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence.

 

Last month the UK government said it would reduce the maximum period of detention to six hours and promised a review of the operation on schedule 7 amid concerns it unfairly targets minority groups and gives individuals fewer legal protections than they would have if detained at a police station.

 

The government of Brazil issued a statement in which it expressed its "grave concern" over the detention of one of its citizens and the use of anti-terror legislation. It said: "This measure is without justification since it involves an individual against whom there are no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation. The Brazilian government expects that incidents such as the one that happened to the Brazilian citizen today are not repeated."

 

Widney Brown, Amnesty International's senior director of international law and policy, said: "It is utterly improbable that David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London, was detained at random, given the role his partner has played in revealing the truth about the unlawful nature of NSA surveillance.

 

"David's detention was unlawful and inexcusable. He was detained under a law that violates any principle of fairness and his detention shows how the law can be abused for petty, vindictive reasons.

 

"There is simply no basis for believing that David Michael Miranda presents any threat whatsoever to the UK government. The only possible intent behind this detention was to harass him and his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for his role in analysing the data released by Edward Snowden."

 

 

Anyone else seen about this? Thoughts? Personally it definitely looks Snowden related, and it makes me wonder why we're getting involved when so far we've been fairly on the outside of it.

[Iun]

1: Snowdon released classified info. Illegal in ANY country in the world.

 

2: Greenwald took the info and reported on it.

 

3: His partner might have some knowledge of how much more information has been obtained or other people looking to sell official secrets.

 

4: The info also related to GCHQ, British Intelligence. Releasing it almost comes under the heading of theft of state secrets. Any intelligence service wouldn't pass up the opportunity to have a word.

 

And the Guardian reporting on this? How wonderfully meta.

[Agent Gibbs]

I'm a little in two minds about this, firstly I can see this as an abuse of press freedom supposedly a protected thing, not to mention it stinks of US involvement to get a way to Snowden

 

But then everything @Iun said is quite true and something that needs addressing

 

Sure the press should be allowed freedom, but there has to be a line in the sand, if a journalist followed a serial killer recording his acts would press freedom protect them? Obviously no So already we accept there's a limit, this is just testing where the limit is , reporting state secrets is murky

 

It's not as if he was tortured, he answered questions for 9 hours, if the boot was on the other foot and he was given access to someone for 9 hours to question someone for an article he wouldn't mind, it's just the role reversal that he doesn't like, hence running to the press

[Rummy]

It's being reported through more than just the Guardian, the BBC too I saw at least - just The Guardian happened to be the first one that came up in google for 'terror heathrow', probably because they had the jump on it. One of my questions: was it terrorism? Is it fair to hold someone under anti-terrorsm laws for non-terrorist issues?

[Iun]

. One of my questions: was it terrorism? Is it fair to hold someone under anti-terrorsm laws for non-terrorist issues?

 

In the absolute strictest sense, no. But in the sense that the release of this information may lead to an increase of terror threats, then yes.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

This is no surprise; in the eyes of the US government, everyone involved with Snowden probably does qualify as a terrorist.

[gaggle64]

I happen to have been reading Greenwald's Guardian column in recent weeks and it's ended up becoming not only a window on state surveillance & assassinations and the internal politics but also a bracing view of state reaction to the journalists trying to record such things. He claims to have had regular contact with members from the US state department and to have been threatened with an attempted smear campaign based on a past relationship he had in his university days (which obviously didn't amount to much).

 

I personally find it impossible to view the detention of his partner as anything other than petty intimidation of the press and in diplomatic terms has constituted a minor disaster for the government. He wasn't suspected of being a terrorist or any danger to the public but they applied laws specifically designed for those instances anyway.

 

The phrase that's been pricking my ears up each time something like this happens or is revealed is "legal". This is "legal", the mass surveillance is "legal", lethal drone strikes are "legal", having information about how these things are defined or carried out is "illegal". To me, the problem is that isn't the question. The question that people like Greenwald are trying ask and get answered is: Is this actually the right thing to do? It's a question with real democratic implications, not just some vague good-vibes kind of way. This kind of intimidation of the press - and I believe strongly it is intimidation of the press - may be legal but you'll have to argue long & hard with me to convince me it's correct.

 

Incidentally, we really need a new Judge Dredd movie.

Edited August 20, 2013 by gaggle64

[Jon]

Clearly they didn't do anything 'wrong'. The problem for me lies in what they class as 'legal'. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it's the correct thing to do.

 

Let's face it nowadays anyone could probably be tied to something terrorist related if the police wanted to.

[jayseven]

I think the press are blowing it up massively because they are perceiving themselves as the victim here. 9 hours is not real news, nor real torment. Hundreds of people being killed in Egypt, hell even the dope-smuggling girls in peru are more of a story. We have no idea how often the anti-terrorism law is utilised and I respect one government official's view (I forget whether it was the home secretary or not) that it would be foolish not to exercise such laws, especially in instances where it's probably quite likely that someone does know some secrets.

 

Of course, the idea that snowden's 'espionage' charges are so massive is the sort of anti-human-rights angle that we really should focus on. Sentenced to more-than-life for saying what the world's spy agencies already knew isn't really just. And, also, us brits are also focused on how we are once again seeming to act in the best interests of the US rather than ourselves makes us think that we aren't run by people who truly reflect the opinions of the majority of the public.

 

But ultimately I think we are far more controlled by the media, and I think they are spinning this out of proportion.

[Ashley]

This is no surprise; in the eyes of the US government, everyone involved with Snowden probably does qualify as a terrorist.

 

The White House has said while they were made aware it was going to happen (unsure if they were told when specifically) they did not request it and is solely the doing of the UK.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

The White House has said while they were made aware it was going to happen (unsure if they were told when specifically) they did not request it and is solely the doing of the UK.

 

This could be a lie, though it might indeed also be the UK acting on its own; it does try to stay on the good side of the US.

[Iun]

I guess the response to this is dictated by whether or not you believe Snowden and Greenwald have committed crimes.

 

The fact is they have committed crimes, the question is do you support the law in this case?

[Agent Gibbs]

I think something more is going on here

the bbc have a story HERE about how The government contacted the guardian over the secrets held by them about how they were so damaging that if they fell into the wrong hands it could lead to terrorist actions, so they are obviously extremely sensitive information. Whats more the editor at the guardian confirms this and describes how they were made to destroy the computers holding the information by GCHQ, but then goes on to say tehy'd already made copies and were planning on still persuing the story.......

And then this bloke is arrested heading to the americas.....

 

They have something, something extremely damaging and it seems they are seeking to take the data out of the UK, i just don't feel we are getting the whole story, and that if something so bad is in these files (such as agent names, locations etc) then tehy pose a risk and if tehy are trying to keep the data purely for an article to sell papers then i think this can be justified

 

are we getting the whole story though...probably not and probably never will

[heroicjanitor]

Gaggle hit the nail on the head, the government is doing things that by all rights should be illegal (and they are illegal in fact, they are just breaking the law) but when someone exposes what they are doing then they accuse them of leaking state secrets. This is nonsense and is something I would expect from a dictatorial state not a democracy. The government can follow the law like everyone else, if they want to wire tap they need probable cause. They can't just mass wiretap the entire fucking world. Though when we are at the stage where the president has powers EQUIVALENT to a dictator, should he choose to use them (not saying they are under a dictatorship obviously but the government is trying its hand) then it doesn't look good.

 

 

Looks like intimidation to me, and holding her for reporting newsworthy information is not good. If someone submits a paper on common security vulnerabilities in websites and it leads to an increase in hacking should that person be held in relation to it?

Edited August 21, 2013 by heroicjanitor

[Agent Gibbs]

interesting article on the Daily mail regarding this, yes i know the daily mail of all places but its actually reasonably impartial and just reporting of facts left out by the guardian (so i guess the self serving aspect of the DM is to discredit a rival paper so thats why they are so truthful)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2398470/STEPHEN-GLOVER-That-airport-arrest-troubles-But-Guardians-murky-waters-love-country-venture.html

[Iun]

interesting article on the Daily mail regarding this, yes i know the daily mail of all places but its actually reasonably impartial and just reporting of facts left out by the guardian (so i guess the self serving aspect of the DM is to discredit a rival paper so thats why they are so truthful)

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2398470/STEPHEN-GLOVER-That-airport-arrest-troubles-But-Guardians-murky-waters-love-country-venture.html

 

I also hate the Daily Mail, but the guy kinda makes my point for me.