David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
(1) A known terror plot. or (2) Affiliation with an organization that has committed or is planning a known terror plot.
where "terror plot" represents a some act that causes direct physical harm to the citizens of a country.
If they cannot point to a specific, known terror plot or affiliation with an organization involved in one, then they should not have detained Miranda under this law.
If they consider bona fide journalism an act of terror, then they should be forced to come out and say so, so that the people can judge how the authorities are using or abusing their power and adjust the laws to correct them.
The citizens of the UK deserve to know what act of terror the UK government was protecting them from when they detained Miranda.
These claims were also made by the Church and the State during the Inquisition, except with the "in defense of the Faith" bit added for flair.
James Clapper showed me the consequences of lying to congress, and I have no reason to believe other officials aren't also taking advantage of the leniency.
It's pretty obvious that half if not most of the crap the NSA is pulling the in States is explicitly illegal and that does nothing to raise the ire of most politicians, the president, the lamestream media, and the NSA itself.
That's what happens with a police state, people are only targeted when they're on the wrong side.
Why did he fly through the UK when he was probably carrying UK secrets or secrets of it's allies? (or at least the UK security services would have suspected that)
As for the second question, who can say? I'd say it's worked out pretty well for the Greenwald and the Guardian though.
While the security services may have over reacted the Guardian doesn't appear to be telling the whole story.
Why didn't the Guardian say OK, take us to court when they were threatened for example.
>> He was not technically entitled to a lawyer. The Guardian sent lawyers to the airport when they were told of his detention. The lawyers were not allowed to see him.
> I know he wasn't technically entitled to a lawyer but he was offered one
Not from the Guardian, though.
I really can't work out what point you're trying to make. Is it that this story is a conspiracy by the Guardian to make the UK & US look bad?
> Why didn't the Guardian say OK, take us to court when they were threatened for example.
This is a totally separate event, but (Guardian editor) Rusbridger says in the comments to his article:
"Play out the scenario for me in which fighting this case in court would have enabled us to do a better job of reporting the Snowden documents. I'm not sure I quite see it..."
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-m...
He further says in a comment to another article:
"A plausible alternative to what actually happened is that the UK would have gone to law (as threatened). From that moment the court would be in charge of the Snowden material. The penalty for destroying it or refusing to hand it over could be extremely punitive. I mean, unlimited fines - not jail ."
Rushbridger's editorial of the other day leaves the impression that the British security services destroyed the computers but then a day later we find out that actually The Guardian destroyed them as part of a compromise with the security services rather then handing them over, and the chief reason the security services wanted them destroyed is in case they fell into the wrong hands.
We also find out the Guardian's lawyer did get access to him after 8 hours (which is admittedly too long)
So it appears we can't trust those who are supposed to be exposing wrong doing by the state to be truthful with us either.