

David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard - tareqak
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23763625

======
malandrew
Seems to me that the litmus test for the authorities to hold anyone under this
law should involve either:

(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.

~~~
LoganCale
If the government considers journalism an act of terror, it's time for a new
government.

------
ferdo
> "legally and procedurally sound"

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.

------
JohnMunsch
Criminals say, "After careful examination, nothing we did was criminal. Thanks
for asking though."

~~~
ncallaway
Sadly, this is the exact effect this is having on my view of government. I've
lost so much trust in the government that I no longer believe anything they
have to say. And not just on the always misguided war on terror; I've lost
faith in anything that comes from most high-level government officials.

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.

------
coherentpony
"We're not saying you broke the law, we're just saying it's a bit weird you
didn't have to." \-- John Oliver

------
logical42
I guess that's why there's a difference between the spirit and the letter of
the law.

------
mullingitover
Nice of Scotland Yard to state exactly what the problem is with this
situation.

------
homosaur
The fact that SY thinks "legally sound" is the important issue shows how much
of a disconnect there is between government and public.

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.

------
rhizome
Just like with the NSA, CIA & FBI, the fact that it's legal _is a problem_.

------
Canada
Why would anyone confide in a lawyer offered by their interrogators? How
disingenuous to claim legal council was offered or available.

~~~
youngtaff
If he was working for the Guardian why didn't he ask for a lawyer from the
Guardian?

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)

~~~
radio4fan
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.

As for the second question, who can say? I'd say it's worked out pretty well
for the Greenwald and the Guardian though.

~~~
youngtaff
I know he wasn't technically entitled to a lawyer but he was offered one
(according to the Guardian's own report)

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.

~~~
radio4fan
>>> If he was working for the Guardian why didn't he ask for a lawyer from the
Guardian?

>> 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...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-
miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters#comment-26171252)

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 ."

[https://id.guardian.co.uk/profile/alanrusbridger/public](https://id.guardian.co.uk/profile/alanrusbridger/public)

~~~
youngtaff
The Guardian and Greenwald are omitting things or at least giving misleading
impressions...

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.

