David Miranda Heathrow detention: No 10 'kept abreast of operation' | Hacker News Reader

David Miranda Heathrow detention: No 10 'kept abreast of operation'

bbc.co.uk

119 pointstpatke49 comments

The article rehashes some old stuff. ...but the point is that the Home Office is officially supporting the action. The key quote is near the end:

"If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."

So, if you oppose this sort of action, you are condoning terrorism. What does that make you? Hmmm... Not sure I like where this is heading.

The interesting thing isn't so much that HO defends the action, which was fully expected, but that it's twisted the position so it no longer has to defend an abuse of a law designed to specifically deal with terrorism. The difference between 'carrying documents to terrorists' and 'carrying documents that if leaked by accident to terrorists would have large national security implications' is huge.

If you're carrying classified documents relating to a country's national security apparatus the likelihood is they're going to find something to trap you on, but the way they're going about it is thoroughly dishonest and sleazy. If you oppose the action of retrieving information and abusing one of our laws, then you must be in favour of terrorism and on the list you go.

It's another warning basically, keep your head down or face the consequences. Add it on with the U.S. gov pushing for 60 years for Manning, and high level members of the UK government threatening legal action against a newspaper if they don't turn over/destroy material facts in an ongoing series of investigative journalism.

Yep, they could just as well say "You have lots of money in your bank account, which could be used to support terrorism". Or: "You've been making anti-government tweets. That could inspire terrorism."

With a bit of twisted logic, anyone and anything can be connected in some way to terrorism, which is why vague laws like these allow governments to violate the rights of anyone for any reason, as this incident clearly demonstrates.

The funny thing is it means anyone carrying information related to state security, even if they're involved with it at a senior level, could be pulled under Section 7 in an airport. There's the potential for data leaks there, possibly in an even greater way due to the rampant lack of ability when it comes to technology in the UK government.

Personally I think that if terrorists want to destroy our way of life then they're going to need to do it themselves -- I won't do it for them by supporting draconian, baseless, and broad-sweeping laws that delegate powers to people with questionable motives.

If we ask these politicians how long it will take to stop the terrorist threat then I'm certain they'd respond "Years, decades, however long it takes."

Safety, at all costs, is a prison cell.

> if terrorists want to destroy our way of life

We should stop thinking the things that we've been brainwashed with.

The basics are really simple: Don't be a d#ck and people will not hate you (and crazies will not be able to recruit "terrorists").

(If we had the chance to really get to know the people we call "terrorists", we'd find that even they would like to live their lives in peace and respect, before anything else, just like the rest of us.)

People dancing in the streets celebrating babies being killed.... Those aren't the terrorists. Thos are like the Justin Bieber fans of terrorism. Terrorism is a supply and demand thing. Killing babies gets some people excited and motivated. On the other side. Its like the war on drugs, that overlooks the DEMAND for drugs. Terrorism is borne out of a demand for bloodshed. The terrorists just supply the blood of women and children, because that's the lowest hanging fruit (the easiest high, if you will). So, at some level, I still agree with you that these' people are f'd up to be so bloodthirsty, its really still a more complex problem. As long as a baby killer is a hero, we will have baby killers. It really has nothing to do with the 'guilt' of the baby (that exploitation of the innocence of the victim, is actually the "terror" in terrorism).

People dance in the streets for everything in the Arab world. I can assure you that there is lots of hootin' and hollerin' in Indiana about similar atrocities visited upon our enemies - we just don't dance, is all.

Giving your ignorance the benefit of the doubt, 'mericans are too busy getting high, and (/or) too fat and lazy (/or) just too uninterested in foreign affairs to give a rats ass about baying for the blood of XYZ special interst group with a terrorist agenda. The people that tend to "hoot and holla" in <repsonse> to violence are by far and large predominantly black and latinos. Or canadians after a hockey match. So you're walking down a slippery slope to racism and/or irellevance with this comparison. Terrorists are another animal...bred by demand and bloodlust...ex ante. As a general rule, Americans are too busy being ignorant (of the world's nuances) to have the kind of thing drive their day to day thinking. You do see this in inner cities occasionally (like London) but again, your looking at a racist subsampling of the population.

I will say though, that the war on drugs is not a flattering picture for Americans. Drugs come into this country because of demand (primarily), not because of supply. The supply happens because the demand is so high, the economics are so compelling. The markup and profit margins on something like cocaine are enourmous. Just last week you had a couple of brits arrested in peru. carying $1-2m of drugs. Going to Ibiza. Do you really think the peruvians are the ones with the Drug problem? Of course not. It's rather the (relatively) rich europeans that want to get off their faces in the Clubs. Where, btw, paying for drugs is cheaper than booze. But absent gold or diamond mining, there is just nothing else with this kind of profit margin and $$/mass ratio available to people that live in the rual hilsides (where cocoa is farmed) in S. America.

Which sort of gets us to root causes. War and drugs and Terrorism are demand side phenomena. But baby killing is not really all that trendy or fashionable. Except for in some parts of the world.

So - giving your own ignorance the benefit of the doubt - I'm assuming you intend to imply that baby killing is trendy in fashionable in the Arab world? But (white) people calling for the extermination of entire swathes of the world population don't exist in the United States?

That's a pretty fucking big benefit I've extended your own ignorance. I recommend you pull your head out of your ass and examine reality for once, my friend. You've clearly never been to a red state if you think blacks, Latinos, and Moooslims have a monopoly on violent thought.

I have no idea why you bring the recreational pharmaceutical economy into the picture. Consider learning to argue a single point. Are you trying to imply that only one vice can be attributed to a single ethnic group at a time?

And wait. Are you honestly trying to tell me that trendy baby killing is a root cause of Muslim violence? To bring things back to your pharmaceutical argument - what the hell are you smoking, son?

It's funny how much people bought Bush's "they hate us for our freedom" line.

Generally, they hate us for screwing over their part of the world. Osama's stated goal was to get the US out of Saudi Arabia. (He succeeded.) Killing a ton of people in Iraq hasn't helped either. And there's plenty more.

The idea that they hate us because we're allowed to speak out against our government or whatever is just silly. I'm sure they delight in millions of Americans being forced to remove their shoes in airports, but that's not their goal.

It's not that they hate our freedom, it's that they fear we will "bring" freedom to them. Unions, human rights (especially women's rights), and some other cornerstones of Western society are absolutely foreign to them, and some relish in the fact that foreigners don't want to live in their lands.

They fear the breaking down of cultural and economic barriers.

>> "Personally I think that if terrorists want to destroy our way of life then they're going to need to do it themselves"

They've already done it. The point of terrorism is to case terror/fear. Between highly visible armed police in large cities and airports, invasions of privacy through spying, and attacks against the press and whistleblowers they've already forced us to change our way of live and give up freedoms.

No, I mean they're going to need to physically come here. Otherwise we need to continue going on with our lives with absolute indifference for their hatred of us and everything we stand for.

They don't hate US and what WE stand for. They hate our government and its foreign policy. Also the decade long occupation of their country.

WE allow this to happen.

They absolutely hate us for what we stand for, for example there is a very large uproar in France about "forcing women to undress" when that's clearly not the intent of the "unveiling" laws.

There are a lot of people and organizations that want to establish Sharia laws across the planet (effectively establishing a global caliphate) and they're not shy about it, look at what happened to Egypt. Once the MB got their election they tried to get their grubby hands into every nook and cranny of government and industry, and it was all orchestrated to cement another Islamic republic in the region.

They see Western decadence as an affront to their way of life, and there are a lot of absolutists that have no interest in integration or cooperation. Their interests lie in world domination, and not the American kind of economic domination -- medieval domination with slavery or death planned for non-Muslims.

There are crazy people and crazy organizations in every country. An extremely small percentage are sufficiently motivated to carry out violent attacks.

When you bomb, shoot, torture, and aid in the oppression someone's family members, friends, and countrymen, that makes them hate you and want to hurt you. Aside from being common sense, this is well understood even within the US military establishment[1][2].

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowback_(intelligence)

2: http://www.businessinsider.com.au/mcchrystal-admits-drones-i...

Seriously? You do know their hatred is basically for our attitude that we can go bomb them and occupy them without repercussions, right? Is that what you think we should stand for? Because the whole fucking world and everybody in it wants freedom and prosperity, and that's what we should stand for, but somehow can't manage to do.

I have noticed a tendency to refer to Edward Snowden as anything but 'whistleblower' in the American press. Now, however, even the BBC seems to be using the term 'fugitive'.

Strange as it may seem, the Danish press[0] refers to Mr Snowden as 'whistleblower', although my largest issue with this usage is that the word is not Danish, but I applaud the sentiment.

I wonder what the term used is in other countries.

[0] I can confirm that Politiken (left-leaning), Information (far left) and Berlingske Tidende (right wing) refers to Snowden as a whistleblower.

Technically he is a fugitive and whistleblower.

Fugitive: A person who has escaped from a place or is in hiding, esp. to avoid arrest or persecution.

However I understand your point. The word makes it sound like he has done something wrong.

That is technically true, but also horribly unfair since there are a lot of connotations around people being fugitives that don't fit in this case.

http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst...

Way to go, BBC: choosing the darkest possible picture of David Miranda, where he's tired and distraught, so that he can look like a "brownie terrorist" as much as possible. Very classy.

I'm not saying they should have airbrushed him WillSmith-style, but he looks a much more regular chap in here: http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...

Actually, to me he looks darker and terroristier in your picture, due to being photographed against a light background.

The article is a 5 sentences "breaking news" piece not really worth reading. There is a single official quote which goes:

The Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism".

I guess it's easier when you just have to phone the White House instead of having to write your own policies :(

If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act

Yeah, well let's say you could remotely justify the warped logic that journalism is terrorism (which you cannot but let's just suppose).

You didn't just seize their possessions, you seized the individual for the full nine hours you were allowed and didn't charge them with anything. So, this was premeditated harassment because they told the US government they were going to hold him while he was still on the flight. You just wanted him to suffer.

I really wish the BBC would link to original sources, and also that the Home Office would publish statements first on the website[1] where there is (currently) no mention of any statement.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publica...

Indeed.

The BBC don't cite sources - they state everything as fact and editorialise terribly. You don't know if you're reading a product press release (like their tech news comes across as) or a political statement from the government (which ALL of their health news comes across as).

This makes me distrust them more than most I think.

But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism".

Can obviously be extended to:

But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen property that would help terrorism".

And therefore anti-terrorism laws can be used in any scenario involving anything that could possibly be useful to terrorists (cars, boats, wheelbarrows...).

Let me rephrase: "The Home Office" is defending the airport detention.

I doubt anyone in this country agrees with them under the circumstances[1] and by no means do they act on behalf of us.

[1] bar some Daily Mail reading crackheads.

let's see....

News about the guardian's hard drives being destroyed, the Miranda detention, and Groklaw shutting down all at once today? It is not a good day.

One in a succession of many!

I had to laugh at myself when the one glimmer of hope in my taking of this recent series of events, was the distraction of John Carmack joining Oculus Rift. I went from quite thorough disillusionment to dreaming of the future of technology, just for the few hours afterwards.

Miranda was held under the Terrorism Act. The interpretation of terrorism as defined by the act can be found here.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1

I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure some of you reading this have knowledge of the law. I would like to know how this act can be applied in these circumstances.

We haven't heard from the Home Office or the police why this was legal, only that they think it was. So we don't really have any substantiated arguments as to how a person could be held under a terrorism law for questioning about journalists.

I'd be very interested to hear them argue that it was legal in front of a judge, so I'm pleased Miranda has now taken legal action. Let's hope that it gets past letters from his lawyers and the government try to justify their position in court.

EDIT - letter to the home office just released:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/20/dav...

This title is confusing : "UK defends Miranda airport detention".

The article itself says "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data". Also it seems to be a small blurb of an unofficial comment since there doesn't seem to be a link to an original, official, source.

This was formerly the correct title of the BBC's article, but the source article has since been modified.

The actual title is "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data", not "UK defends Miranda airport detention", it looks like it has been changed on the BBC site.

Just what precisely is this "No 10" business?

So, like, "No 10" says it's justified. I don't understand what "No 10" is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street

Ah... so does that make them 8 below a "number two"?

On this ongoing battle between secret services and that journalist, I side with nobody, except OLJC.

I think this would be a great time for the Queen to speech up and prove she is not just a touristic attraction.

Unfortunately I know well she won't dispel my frustrations

Really? And blow the monarchy's neutrality? Defy the voted for will of the people?

Given the tone of your post, can I assume you would want her to do this in order to undermine the monarchy?

I don't get it... Why this would undermine monarchy?

You are saying that british people EXPECTS the queen to do nothing when people are doing shit?

Wtf of system is that?

It's called representative democracy.

The UK isn't a monarchy...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_monarchy Basically the royal family has mostly ceremonial duties not political ones.

You obviously don't understand the relationship of the Queen and the UK government. She is a non-political 'figurehead' head of state. She represents the state. She has to be non-political and neutral, as she is unelected. If she started spouting off her own opinions on various things (even if you might agree with them), then it would undermine this relationship to such an extent that in all likelihood, the monarchy would be abolished.

Basically, the British monarchy continues to exist because it does nothing. The prime minister is elected by the people if he does something the people don't like, they can elect someone else. If the Queen does something the people don't like, their only recourse is to abolish the monarchy.

Alright, people explained stuff to me, now can you stop downvoting my question? It is not a stupid question!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com