
Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation - m1
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa
======
grey-area
The salient quote from Greenwald's article on this:

 _They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing
whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments
lie when they claim that they need powers to stop "the terrorists", and how
dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name._
[1]

This is a great example of why we should treat terrorism like any other crime,
and why the police should never be trusted with exceptional powers simply
because we feel under threat. Give them the powers, and they will be misused -
in this case they were used on a relative of someone nothing to do with
terrorism purely for the purpose of intimidation. The security services even
called Greenwald to give him the news that his partner had been detained.

[1]
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-
miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

~~~
jacquesm
I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald
is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict
quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the
journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by
any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane.

Taking into account that the UK law enforcement and Brazil have a bit of a
history when it comes to labelling people terrorist wrongly makes it even
worse.

~~~
throwit1979
_the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date_

Why would this be a tactical mistake? The general public DOES NOT GIVE A FUCK.
The government(s) know(s) this quite well.

If you think for a second that detention of associates of political enemies
matters to an electorate far more interested in the minutiae of Kanye West's
baby, you're living in a fairy land of your own making.

~~~
legutierr
I'm kind of confused by what you consider the "general public" here.

Right now, in addition to this being the top story on HN, it is is on the
default reddit front page at #9 and rising. It's also on the front page of the
New York times website, and also in the top three headlines at
news.google.com. Google reports 25 articles most being published in the last
hour.

By these measures, it seems to me that a lot of people are rather interested
in the story.

Now, I understand that you may not consider "the population that consumes its
news on the internet" to be equivalent to the "general public". But any
argument about that question is a much larger one than an argument about the
public's interest in this particular story.

The fact is, even amongst all of the tabloid trash real news stories do matter
to people, and people who consume cotton candy celebrity media for
entertainment can also be consumers of hard news. The existence of one doesn't
preclude interest in the other.

~~~
rmk2
Neither the BBC, Independent, The Sun nor Daily Mail report on it; q.e.d., the
"general public" doesn't care.

Edit: The Sun does, however, have boobs on its homepage, the Daily Mail talks
about celebrities and the BBC's international site talks about Syria,
Gibraltar and Usain Bolt, with its England page concerned with assisted
suicide, a rider who died after a horse accident, something about climate
activists and this gem: "Leicester Globe pub closes over anti-military
rumours"...

Edit 2: Colour me impressed, the Telegraph not only reports on it on its
frontpage, it also has an additional quote by an Amnesty International
spokesperson. That's at least something, I suppose?

~~~
nl
It's now the second-to-top story on the www.bbc.co.uk website

~~~
jlgreco
Certain HN contributors seem to subscribe to a very strange idea that if
something is news on HN, it surely is not news elsewhere.

You see it all the time. Go back to the very first HN discussions about PRISM
and phonetapping and you'll see people swearing on their mothers life that
nobody outside HN will ever care because it is just a 'nerd issue' or
something.

------
throwaway_yy2Di
Greenwald just posted his own account:

[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-
miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

 _At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I
received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security
official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had
been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act
of 2000."_

 _David had spent the last week in Berlin, where he stayed with Laura Poitras,
the US filmmaker who has worked with me extensively on the NSA stories. A
Brazilian citizen, he was returning to our home in Rio de Janeiro this morning
on British Airways, flying first to London and then on to Rio. When he arrived
in London this morning, he was detained._

 _At the time the "security official" called me, David had been detained for 3
hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for
up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either
arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official
- who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number:
203654 - said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they
allow me to talk to him._

 _I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as
well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior
Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was
being done._

~~~
rolux
Quote:

"Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of
people they feel threatened by."

~~~
ams6110
Come again? I thought threatening one's family was #1 in the mafia playbook.

~~~
jlgreco
Obviously that depends on the mafia, and the era. Hard to make broad
statements about "the" mafia.

~~~
davidw
The Sicilian Mafia are pretty vile human beings, by and large.

Compare and contrast "detained 9 hours", which is a big violation of civil
liberties on behalf of a government, with "dissolved an innocent _child_ in
acid", which is just sickening and inhuman.

[http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Giuseppe_Di_Matteo](http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omicidio_di_Giuseppe_Di_Matteo)

Not to say at all that what the government did in this case was "not so bad",
just that there _is_ worse out there.

~~~
octagonal
The mere fact that it's becoming possible to make comparisons between a
Western government and a criminal organisation, even if it's just to get a
message across, is worse enough on its own.

~~~
davidw
People have always made comparisons. The mere fact that they're making them
does not necessarily have any bearing on reality.

~~~
rolux
While obviously, mafias and governments work on the same problem: How to
govern, how to stay in power.

Of course, a government has the power to brand a mafia as a criminal
organization, but the line between legal and criminal can be very blurry, and
often quite arbitrary.

If you just go, historically, by the score of committed crimes, then whatever
metric you choose, governments and their agencies will beat criminal
organizations by a huge margin.

~~~
davidw
> While obviously, mafias and governments work on the same problem

Bullshit.

You'd do well to read more about the Mafia and how it affects places where
it's strong. They are _badly_ governed, and generally not good places to live
or do business as an honest person.

Denmark has a strong government that is quite involved in its citizens lives,
but the number of them that end up dead, tortured, with their lives ruined,
and so on is minimal compared to people in Sicily, Calabria, Campania, or
other areas in southern Italy dominated by Mafias. And the standard of living
is far higher. People are happier; with the possible exception of the climate,
which is not really something either Mafias or anyone else can change on a
local level unless you read some of the wackier subreddits.

Mafias are nothing like western democracies. If you're going to compare them
with governments, compare them with feudal, tribal systems where family and
personal loyalty is everything, and the rule of law counts for nothing.

To equate even something so abhorrent as fascist Italy to the Mafia is to have
a gross and severe misunderstanding of history. They are both _bad_ , but very
_different_.

The Mafia is a real thing here in Italy, not just some abstract talking point
for your libertarian ranting.

~~~
MichaelSalib
With respect, you might want to familiarize yourself with some significant
papers from the political science literature, starting with
[http://static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf‎](http://static.ow.ly/docs/0%20Tilly%2085_5Xr.pdf‎)

~~~
davidw
Access denied. Do you have another link?

~~~
MichaelSalib
Sorry, I don't offhand but you can probably find one by just searching for
"War Making and State Making as Organized Crime" by Charles Tilly.

------
scarmig
Disgusting.

If I went out and suggested that the families of the politicians who did this
should be kidnapped, held by force for hours without any contact with the
outside world, and have all their possessions stolen, I'd be rightly condemned
all around. Hell, even if I suggested one of the politicians who conceived
this should be abducted by goons and abused for hours on end, I'd probably be
indicted under some terrorist act or another.

And perhaps I should be: it's a deep depravity what happened here, and I'm
deeply ashamed it happens anywhere, let alone in the Western world. Soon we
won't be able to hold ourselves up as beacons of freedom to those in savage,
barbaric places like China where all Internet usage is surveilled or Russia
where you can be targeted for being gay or being a member of the press who has
printed stories critical of the State.

~~~
jonlucc
Soon? It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is
already being punished, and we now know that the internet is surveilled.

~~~
paganel
> It looks like the act of printing stories critical of the state is already
> being punished

I've just finished reading a pamphlet written ~370 years ago, in 1644, called
"Compassionate Samaritan", authored by a very interesting character named
William Walwyn, where he had this to say about the religious establishment of
his time:

> There they brand men with the name of heretics, and fasten what errors they
> think are most hateful to the people upon those men they purpose to make
> odious. There they confute all opinions, and boldly they may do it, for as
> much as no liberty of reply or vindication in public is allowed to any,
> though never so much scandalized by them. And that men may not vindicate
> themselves by writing, their next interest is to be masters of the press, of
> which they are lately become by an ordinance for licensing books; which,
> being intended by the Parliament for a good and necessary end, namely the
> prohibition of all books dangerous or scandalous to the state, is become by
> means of the licensers, who are divines and intend their own interest, most
> serviceable to themselves in the stopping of honest men's writings, that
> nothing may come to the world's view but what they please - unless men will
> run the hazard of imprisonment, as I now do. So that in public they may
> speak what they will, write what they will, they may abuse whom they will,
> and nothing can be said against them. Well may they presume of making
> themselves masters of the people, having these foundations laid, and the
> people generally willing to believe they are good.

Now, anyone can replace "the divines" from the (very long) quote with the
current establishment and the "heretics" and "honest men" with, well, the few
honest men of our times.

~~~
jacquesm
There is a reason why that proverb about studying history and repeating it
exists. Too bad not many people like to study history, it is not like we
haven't been here before.

------
midhir
About two or three years ago I was taken aside when boarding a plane at a
London airport back to Belfast by a policeman and held under their terrorism
legislation. Being heavily hungover from a night spent funding London's
publicans, and a little nervous about flying, I just wanted to board the plane
and go home.

Nevertheless, I was questioned by the queue as others boarded the plane,
casting nasty looks my way. The cop asked some pretty insulting, at times
ignorant, questions. I guess to see if I harboured any anti-British/anti-
state/anti-cop feelings. I got the impression if I lost my cool I'd be
spending a lot longer in that airport.

I didn't know my rights, that's my fault. Nor did I want to escalate a
situation where the odds were stacked against me. I did feel pretty disgusted
though, given that I'd done nothing wrong. Even now I feel like I shouldn't
share this kind of thing online lest the wrong person read it. I found myself
asking; why me? Was it something I said on Twitter or Facebook? Did I just
look at him the wrong way without realising?

Luckily he let me go after some thorough questioning and the plane waited for
me (although finding my seat was basically a walk of shame). They probably do
this day and daily to all kinds of people. And most would never talk about it
for fear of receiving worse down the line.

~~~
nitrogen
_...casting nasty looks my way...._

That's one of the worst parts of abuses of power; the people not being abused
very quickly start to blame the victims of abuse. "You must be a bad person if
they're talking to you," onlookers might be thinking to themselves.

~~~
hahainternet
In this thread a man being detained for 9 hours has been compared as worse
than mafia members murdering people, now apparently the look on the faces of
hte officers is a serious abuse too.

This whole thread has destroyed any credibility HN had.

~~~
tomjen3
If you don't understand why this is far worse than nuking London, then you
have no reason to be on HN.

------
ferdo
> Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated
> electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory
> sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

Thievery and intimidation are good indicators of who and what we're dealing
with.

~~~
rhizome
As IRC has taught us for two decades, there are probably few things more
antagonistic than a butthurt pirate.

~~~
Karunamon
What _are_ you on about?

~~~
rhizome
If you're not familiar with IRC, it probably won't make much sense. It made
sense to some people before the downvotes, though.

------
Tossrock
As bad as things are in America vis-a-vis the surveillance state, I've always
thought that England is actually worse. I guess it explains why they have such
a rich history of dystopian thought. When I saw the "Secure beneath the
watchful eyes" poster [1] I couldn't believe it wasn't satire.

[1] [http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/PS6c0IS.jpg)

~~~
alan_cx
As a Brit, I agree. But, the scope is different. The US threatens literally
every country on earth..... the UK?

Ah, bless. Its almost funny, isn't it?

All we can do is harass our own, in order to suck up to Uncle Sam.

TBH, I find UK behavior worse. Its not on principle, its sucking up. My
country turns my stomach at times, and this is one of them.

~~~
brohee
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-
inva...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/9653497/British-have-invaded-nine-
out-of-ten-countries-so-look-out-Luxembourg.html)

Going by history, the UK is the most threatening entity ever...

------
appleflaxen
> The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows

What a flagrant abuse of power. It looks like their power should be reigned
in.

The acts are fascism. The public would pay more attention if we refer to them
as such.

* edits: wording. I have hard time being dispassionate about this.

~~~
omonra
Don't be shy - call it what it is - genocide.

~~~
rorrr2
faschism = An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government
and social organization.

Which fits the situation.

Your genocide reference, an attempt to trivialize the above statement, doesn't
even make sense.

~~~
omonra
You have to accept that not everything happening in the world you dislike
qualifies for fascism, genocide or equivalence to Hitler.

Overusing these labels dilutes their 'brand', and then you don't have
appropriate adjectives for real cases of fascism or genocide.

~~~
ams6110
Rather than fascism per-se, actions like holding people without charge,
perusing their personal belongings and papers without due process, and
threatening families or associates, are the marks of totalitarianism. It
exists on both the right and left ends of the political spectrum.

~~~
rolux
> It exists on both the right and left ends of the political spectrum.

Even though those are relatively exotic forms, compared to the one that exists
in the _middle_ of the political spectrum.

------
k-mcgrady
I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours,
refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer
questioning.

Edit: shocked is probably the wrong word it's hard to get surprised by this
stuff anymore.

~~~
DanBC
It seems odd that they removed property of a journalist. I was under the
impression that journalists (and their materials) had special protections
under English law.

Once you get in the country you have different rights
([http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...](http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm))
([https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-
rights](https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights))

~~~
sbarre
Is he a journalist, or just the partner of a journalist?

Maybe since they know they can't intimidate Greenwald directly they are going
after his family and loved ones?

~~~
LoganCale
I'm not sure what he does for a living, but he was in Germany to meet with
Laura Poitras so he is at least somewhat involved.

------
ferdo
And one of the foot soldiers of the Powers That Be weighs in:

"Glenn, Glenn - did you really think there'd be zero consequences for you and
those close to you? I expected Ed to believe WL lies, but you?"

\- John Schindler (@20committee) August 18, 2013

[https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257](https://twitter.com/20committee/statuses/369169570298208257)

~~~
mrmekon
My god. The responses are basically saying that they agree with the government
kidnapping and robbing the family of a journalist in retaliation for the
journalist's legal news coverage.

~~~
ferdo
Combine those responses with Michael Grunwald's "I can't wait to write a
defense of the drone strike that takes out Julian Assange" and we can see the
lines being drawn right before our eyes.

------
iandanforth
This is crime. The people who authorized this should be put in jail and the
officers present should at least be fired.

It should not be allowed that power is so easily abused, nor should written
laws be so easily twisted without fear of consequence.

I believe a civil disruption of the airport specifically targeting the
security apparatus would be an appropriate response.

To the cynics, yes, I am idealistic and, yes I'm pretty much just venting, but
damn, this is just going too far. Suggestions for _constructive_ frustration
welcome.

~~~
_yields
> The people who authorized this should be put in jail

By who ?

------
kafkaesque
As Greenwald's response[0] suggests, it seems the only obvious way to cause
any type of change (from small to moderate), seems to speak in terms of
'mafia', 'fascism', and 'police state'.

Allow me to take John Stuart Mill out of context momentarily, because he was
speaking with regard to Irish-English relationship (territory disputes between
the two countries). But it summarises Mill's thought on why radical and
extreme thought is useful: it helps bring small to moderate change because it
incites dialogue. Unfortunately, this seems to be where we are at now.

"...I well knew that to propose something which would be called extreme was
the true way not to impede but to facilitate a more moderate experiment. [...]
To induce them to approve of any change it is necessary that they should look
upon it as a middle course: they think every proposal extreme and violent
unless they hear of some other proposal going still farther, upon which their
antipathy to extreme views may discharge itself".[1]

[0]
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-
miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

[1] Autiobiography. John Stuart Mill. Penguin Classics. p. 216.

~~~
fragsworth
Being modest in an argument never convinces anyone of anything. However, if
you appear to be seriously pissed and offended, then people tend to think for
a moment about it.

 _Why are they so angry? There must be a good reason._

------
api
HN is a smart bunch, so I'm going to ask:

Why do people think the security state is being rammed through with such a
sense of urgency right now? Are they expecting something? A war? An economic
crisis? Ecological meltdown? Invasion from outer space?

I ask because I get the impression that there is a top-down (from the
executive branch) full-court-press on this, and that the gloves are coming
off. That leads me to wonder if there's something driving this, some sense of
urgency.

~~~
olefoo
I think Charles Stross said it best[1], what we have now is effectively the
_ancien regime_ pre-revolutionary state; that MUST retain absolute control,
lest the natural order be shattered irretrievably.

In effect, the guardians of the status quo are in full panic mode and are not
necessarily reacting rationally.

This is why this incident should be investigated by ( on the UK side ) a
parliamentary commission, and ( on the US side ) by an independent
congressional commission.

1\. [http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad-
dr...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/a-bad-dream.html)

~~~
w_t_payne
I agree .. but I also think that technological change is exacerbating old
stresses in the system.

------
616c
I happened to be a fairly conservative high schooler after September 11th,
living in NJ suburb. 9/11 happened in my time there. I saw smoke from the
city, not quite the buildings themselves, and classmates lossed parents. We
were all militant after that, and someone needed to burn.

No matter how conservative my friends and I were, we saw not so long after
those days Farenheit 9/11, the then controversial 9/11 documentary. No matter
how hard-core Republican I was then (spending time in the Arab world later had
me quickly outgrow that), I was appalled by the admission of lifer
Congressman, scumbag Charles Rangel (NY - D) in his interview in the movie. He
said no one he knew read the Patriot Act, not a single one, him included. No
one would say no at the time to such legislation. Even as a sophomore I was
appalled and said in the first real interest in non-partisan politics, we
should have people removed for such incompetence.

As I said I was a sophomore then, and discovered subsequently how very
sophmoric I was. Nothing is more self-serving than govt in crisis, in the alia
acta est way. That was the beginning of my disbelief in my government, then
all government more as each year passes. Fuck them all.

------
icambron
If you were one of those people who still -- after all this time -- says
things like, "it's OK, [insert law] is only for acts of terrorism", now would
be a good time to reconsider that.

Or issues of national security or state emergencies or...

~~~
u2328
It's mission creep. Law enforcement will always demand more power in pursuit
of what they see as their goal of stopping the bad guys. Trampling all over
innocent peoples' civil liberties is unfortunate to them, but they will never
cease their pursuit for more power. Have you heard Ray Kelly's argument in
defense of stop-and-frisk? _" We do this to protect minorities! It's for their
own good!"_ without any mention or even a passing courtesy to said minority's
civil rights.

Actually, I can think of one area that probably won't be receiving all the
extra scrutiny that the rest of us have been enjoying in new found police
state, and that's Wall Street. Someone's gotta pay for all those toys cops
have been buying lately.

------
junto
I apologise for my country's idiotic and rude behaviour. I will make sure that
I vote for none of the political parties that currently run the country, nor
the previous one, as none of them can be trusted.

Again, sorry. Our country is being run by fuckwits. We keep voting for
different parties but it doesn't seem to make a difference.... Hang on a
sec....

------
bountie
So many countries have "Detain first, something-something later" policies that
it's easier to make a list of the ones who don't. Like Japan, for example,
allows suspects to be arrested and detained for 20+ days without being charge

[http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/japan-end-abusive-
detention-s...](http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/japan-end-abusive-detention-
system-after-murder-conviction-quashed-2012-11-07)

------
akg_67
I guess Greenwald, his family and friends are now on terrorist watch list. I
wonder how soon Guardian will be dubbed Terrorist Organization.

More and more, it appears western governments are following the policy of if
you criticize us, you are terrorist.

~~~
LoganCale
And as those governments do that, they lose all remaining legitimacy.

~~~
mcintyre1994
The great irony being that as they lose their legitimacy they're gaining power
by labeling more people/activities as terrorists/terrorism.

------
cransa
This and the fact that Obama is constantly being caught in lies says to me
that the U.S. government has no clue what information Edward Snowden has
passed off to Greenwald.

~~~
cvet
This is a really interesting bit of speculation. Obama's consistently "just
off" statements (i.e. saying an executive order that hadn't been implemented
yet would have protected Snowden) make me think that Obama & his advisers
doesn't have a good handle on what the NSA is doing and how the law applies to
the "secret state." One could say that "Obama is lying," which may be
perfectly true, but it could also be that the politicians are genuinely
uninformed and/or think protections exist that don't.

I could see this being the case because politicians train to talk about health
care and the economy, while the details of NSA programs are rarely discussed
and so politicians have little incentive to be up on the facts.

~~~
straight_talk_2
Obama is nothing, but a puppet. His masters surely have blackmail material to
absolutely ruin him - say a recording of sex with an underage.

~~~
jessaustin
I don't think it even has to be that extreme. When one starts out as a
politician, even small-potatoes stuff like inflated tax exemptions would be
enough to influence the ambitious. Later, once one is president, they have
recordings of all the noxious shit you've done at their command. This is basic
spy agency tactics.

It's quite probable that Obama knows about shit the various agencies have done
that would make GG's hair curl. It's also quite probable they've done much
worse shit that he doesn't know about.

------
nsns
I think it's time we started talking of the "English-speaking axis" and its
totalitarian tactics.

~~~
jlgreco
That is probably a tad unfair to Canada, Ireland, Jamaica, etc.

~~~
danielharan
Canada's RCMP spied on Amnesty, the Anglican Church and the Raging Grannies.
Our secret services gave their American counterparts information that led to
torture of Canadian citizens and others.

You think we're not part of this totalitarian movement?

~~~
jlgreco
I'm not Canadian, but do you think that Canada is participating in a
particularly more extreme manner than non-engligh speaking countries?

Language is not the binding factor here.

~~~
danielharan
US / UK / NZ / Canada and Australia have historically cooperated on Intel. See
e.g.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA_Agreement)

~~~
jlgreco
Yeah, I am not disputing that... read my above comment again.

------
drunkenmasta
more of this : "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."

less of this: "ohh noo.. Should I write my opinion on the internet? What if
the NSA is watching????! Will I be put on the...the. the list???"

~~~
gknoy
That's a good point: we already know they are watching, and that we are all on
the list.

~~~
u2328
How very 20th Century of you. We're all in the database; much more efficient.

~~~
Tossrock
Well, a table is conceptually equivalent to a list of rows

------
mythz
Just more evidence that the world is controlled by an oppressive totalitarian
Govt that we're effectively powerless to stop.

At least with these incidents we get to know which other countries are
complicit and under the influence of the NSA.

~~~
danenania
No, we aren't powerless. That's why these people are so relentless in their
intimidation and pursuit of more power. If they thought we were powerless,
they wouldn't bother. They are afraid, and they should be. The tide can turn
quickly.

~~~
mythz
I don't think the ability to dispense fear and intimidation around the world
at will is a show of fear.

Our biggest hope is this becomes a national issue for the next election so we
at least have the opportunity to elect the leader who respects our
constitutional rights the most.

~~~
noonespecial
And which one will that be? The "democrat" or the "republican"?

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJ0qYR6YFo)

~~~
mythz
Not clear yet, if its a national issue each side can make their position known
and back it up with planned reforms.

The one thing that is clear is that we shouldn't expect change under an Obama
administration.

~~~
straight_talk_2
Are you really that naive as to expect change under the next
democrat|republican administrations?

~~~
mythz
You've confused hope with naivety, where there is none.

Election time is the best time for reform, i.e. where the democratic process
has the most influence.

~~~
ams6110
And this time around, let's hope we are a bit more curious about the "change"
we are voting for.

~~~
straight_talk_2
Voting for a very small set of preselected candidates, endorsed by either wing
of the elite party and mass media has zero chance of changing anything.

------
jere
>The official - who refused to give his name but would only identify himself
by his number: 203654

Yup, looks like we are officially living in some sort of Orwellian dystopia.

------
rdl
I'm curious exactly what you have to do in transit through the UK if detained
and questioned. I'd presumably identify myself, and comply politely for a few
minutes, but once it became pretty clear I was going to miss my flight, I'd
want to know the various options. I have zero interest in being in the UK if
in transit, so "we're going to send you back to Germany" "do it, then" is
fine. Or, "you're an asshole, we're going to put you on the next flight to
Brazil and never let you enter the UK" is also fine. The risk would be that
"actively non-cooperative" is a sign of "is a terrorist" and then you get the
free flight to Cuba.

It seems obvious that a targeted person should travel with a lot of
older/disposable devices full of lightly encrypted but legal "NSFL" material,
like medical/battlefield/surgery photos or, depending on the country, various
types of legal porn. Or perhaps Slavoj Zizek books sans title information.

~~~
rdl
Oh wow, under title 7 in the UK it is a criminal offense to refuse to answer
questions for any reason during that 9 hour period.

Looks like a total travel boycott of the UK is prudent. In addition to
compelled disclosure of keys, it is worse than the US for this reason too.

~~~
gsnedders
Try asserting any right to silence at the US border — you won't get far. If
you are not a US national, I'd expect you to be refused entry (and as one is
required to complete an ETSA prior to arrival, one is required to sign away
any right to appeal of the decision of the border control staff).

~~~
rdl
Oh, I'm totally fine with people who are non-cooperative and non-citizens
being denied entry. I'm a US Citizen, so I have an absolute right to re-enter
the US without answering any questions (they do have a right to make sure I'm
who I say I am, and that I'm not carrying any prohibited things in
contravention of customs regulations, but that's it).

I'm not sure how it works for transit. Also, if I were not a US citizen (and,
even as a US citizen), I'd avoid the US as a transit country if at all
possible -- lack of sterile transit makes it a pain due to waiting and
scheduling even if you're a citizen, and if you're not visa waiver, it's
horrible.

The UK does sterile transit, so most travelers shouldn't even have to touch
security/immigration/customs if they're in transit only, which is what
confuses me about this story.

~~~
gsnedders
If you're entering the EU or a Schengen-signatory, even for a transit flight,
you are required to pass through security (all passengers on any flight
departing within the EU must have passed through EU-legislated security, to
avoid the case where their incoming security has been lax). Some places
include more (the UK requires security for /all/ passengers arrival on an
international flight, regardless of the EU).

What one doesn't have to do is pass through border control or customs (unless
one is transferring onto a domestic flight, then quite where you clear border
control and customs varies from place to place — in the UK you clear the
border at the port of entry and customs upon arrival at your final
destination).

Also — just to note, I can't imagine anyone ever being actually arrested under
the no-right-to-silence clause (and if they did, I expect it'd just get take
to the ECHR and thrown out) except potentially for UK
citizens/subjects/nationals/whatever-other-categories-there-are-that-I-always-
forget (for whom entry cannot be refused).

If what you mean by not being sure how it works for transit is how it works in
the US — you must posses a valid visa (probably a transit visa) or not need a
visa (VWP, citizenship, etc.) for entry into the US, regardless of your
further destination. Sadly, for many of us from Europe, many flights to South
America require pre-approval from the US, because you cross US airspace, even
though you never land.

------
awjr
I find this so hard to deal with. There's party of me screaming at the screen
saying what is happening is so so so wrong more, but another part of me fears
for my family. The fact I fear for my family feels like my head is above the
parapet. The problem more than anything is that nobody around me seems to be
that bothered about this. WTF do I do?

~~~
efdee
Why do you fear for your family?

------
everyone
For me the most absurd thing is that all this erosion of peoples rights and
several wars have been justified by the threat of terrorism. I'm not going to
even bother finding some statistics to post right now but the actual threat of
terrorism is vanishingly small. For example in 2012, more Americans died
crushed by their TVs or furniture than from terrorism.

[http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-
rights/sta...](http://filipspagnoli.wordpress.com/stats-on-human-
rights/statistics-on-war-conflict/statistics-on-terrorism/)

~~~
noblethrasher
Be careful with this kind of argument. Among the reasons that we object to the
treatment of Mr. Miranda et. al. is that it can cause a chilling effect,
similar to what terrorism does.

Are you prepared to argue that the threat of home furniture will ever cause a
chilling effect?

~~~
everyone
Yes, I agree there is a difference between an accident and an attack. The main
point I'm making is the organisations involved are clearly using terrorism as
a pretext, greatly inflating its media presence. If the US for example really
wanted to reduce terrorism things like better universal education and social
welfare would probably really be effective as the vast majority of the US'
terrorism is internal. (Killing of abortion clinic doctors and so forth)

------
jusben1369
I think this is a terrible mistake but I do wish he'd stop referring to
himself as a journalist. He's a political protagonist using his platform for
change. Journalist's don't "aggressively" report on stories. It matters
because GG is now so tightly integrated into this story that we need to view
his comments not as those of an impartial reporter.

I doubt they think they can intimidate him. They probably are hoping they can
get their hands on as yet unreleased docs to stop them being published. Either
way it's a real mistake.

~~~
ferdo
One of the functions of a free press (journalists) is exactly to aggressively
report on the malintent of bureaucrats and the maladministration of government
power. Actual journalism is and always has been a form of dissent.

~~~
jusben1369
"He said he would respond by writing reports "much more aggressively than
before" and would publish "many more documents". "I have lots of documents
about the way the secret services operate in England. Now my focus will be
there as well," he added. "I think they are going to regret what they did."

\- Does it sound like he is now reporting impartially or is he clearly a
participant in the game with revenge on his mind?

~~~
ferdo
Greenwald's response:

"Reuters is the absolute worst at tearing comments out of context for
sensationalizing headlines. The paraphrase:

Q: Will the UK's detention of your partner deter your future reporting?

A: Absolutely not. If anything, it will do the opposite. It will embolden me:
I have many more documents to report on, including ones about the UK, where
I'll now focus more. I will be more aggressive, not less, in reporting.

Q: What effect do you think they'll be of the UK's detention of your partner?

A: When they do things like this, they show the world their real character.
It'll backfire. I think they'll come to regret it.

REUTERS: HE VOWS TO PUBLISH DOCUMENTS ABOUT UK AFTER DETENTION, SAYS THEY WILL
BE SORRY!!!"

[http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm09tf](http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1rm09tf)

------
tracker1
As a U.S. citizen, I am more and more surprised that we aren't subject to a
world wide trade embargo... We're as reliant on food grown in south/central
america as in our own country, or others are reliant on us. As for tech, if
China/Taiwan/Japan closed off all sales, the public would show significant
outrage.

I don't think most people in this country will care until they can't buy a new
iPhone 6, or Galaxy S 5... What I am really surprised by is how many other
countries have tolerated this so far.

------
keithpeter
Welcome to the UK

[1] [https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-
rights/terrori...](https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/human-
rights/terrorism/overview-of-terrorism-legislation/index.php)

[2] [https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/bill-
tracker/...](https://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk/policy/bill-tracker/past-
bills/2012/protection-of-freedoms-bill-2011-12.php)

I think I'll buy the Guardian tomorrow...

------
jacquesm
Fox news has it now: [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/18/partner-nsa-
leaks-jo...](http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/08/18/partner-nsa-leaks-
journalist-held-for-hours/)

------
jrockway
I can't think of any legitimate government questioning someone and not
allowing an attorney to be present. This is really scary.

~~~
yaddayadda
I've got a big moral problem with a country interrogating a non-citizen and
not allowing an attorney to be present or consulted.

More than a few years ago, I had key evidence about a felony and therefore had
good reason to cooperate with the investigating officers. The initial
questions were simple, factual, and related to the felony. But then the
questions changed. At a certain point the questions became _almost_
accusatory, at which point I started to ask WTF. It was then - and only then -
that I was told I was a suspect and read my Miranda Rights. As knowledgeable
as I was about my rights in my own country, all this still left dumbfounded.
(It turned out the suspect in the felony had subsequently accused me and a
colleague of a different felony. For months we were still suspects, had our
own rights limited and were interrogated frequently. Thankfully, evidence came
to light several months later that firmly cleared me and my colleague.)

I can not imagine being in a foreign country and going through a comparable
situation. Beyond the right and wrong of David Miranda being interrogated,
I've got a huge moral problem with any country interrogating a non-citizen
without legal counsel.

------
fixxer
Someone left a Gandhi quote in the comments section on the Guardian... worth
rewriting here I think:

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you
win." -Mahatma Gandhi

------
smegel
God, imagine if Russia had done this, and how the UK/USA would have responded.

The UK's credibility as a democracy is fading fast...

------
jacquesm
Shades of Joseph Wilson. There will be some serious fall out from this, I
wonder what they were thinking when they pulled this stunt, Greenwald is not
going to be intimidated.

------
northwest
The UK should be kicked out of the EU. Until they learn how to behave.

~~~
DrJokepu
This is probably the worst idea I've read on HN this week.

It's not just legally and politically impossible, it wouldn't solve the
problem, it would have dire economic consequences, it would be grossly
disproportionate and unfair and these kind of petty attempts at disciplining
sovereign nations would only serve to politically destabilise Europe.

~~~
claudius
Nah, it is actually a pretty good idea. It's high time for the EU to actually
take a stance on civil liberties, human rights and the abolishment of these
‘anti-terrorism acts’. This will be a lot harder if there are people at the
table working on their application as the 51st state.

Furthermore, by cutting ties with the UK, both its financial and economical
situation will be worsened, making for a loss of importance until it’s only an
annoying island off the coast of France rather than the first waypoint to
Canada or (in this case) Brazil.

~~~
SEMW
There is an a European body dedicated to civil liberties and human rights, and
it isn't the EU.

It's the Council of Europe, which is the body which coordinated the European
Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and runs the European Court of Human Rights
(ECtHR).

The only human rights cases that come before the EU courts (the CJEU) are only
those within its jurisdiction. Which means: either reviewing acts of EU
institutions (e.g. as in Kadi, which was reviewing regulations by the EC
implementing a UN Security Council directive), or reviewing EU laws, or
reviewing acts of member states implementing EU laws.

So: while the EU does have a charter of fundamental rights (the CFREU) - and
is itself soon going to be a signatory to the ECHR - you can only sue the
government in the CJEU for violating it _when they 're implementing EU law_.
(Especially for the UK and Poland, who have a pointless clause which restates
this just for them because they're special snowflakes).

The Terrorism Act 2000 is not an EU law.

So: this is outside the scope of the EU's jurisdiction. The appropriate
international court to take this to is the ECtHR.

As for kicking the UK out of the Council of Europe, that's something that can
and should happen if, and only if, someone brings this to the the ECtHR, they
rule against the UK, and the UK refuses to bring UK law into compliance.
Trying to short-circuit that and kick the UK out without that legal process
would do nothing except damage the reputation of the Council of Europe for
rule of law.

~~~
claudius
While you are of course right that, from a legal perspective, the ECtHR is the
body responsible for (most cases) of human rights abuse, and that it is not
part of the EU per se, I did not mean to say that the current case should be
brought in front of an EU court.

What I did mean to say was that the EU as a whole should (politically) take a
strong stance on such issues, implement appropriate, EU-wide legislation to
protect the privacy of European citizens from their own and third party
governments as well as private companies and enforce corresponding standards
in international trade – i.e., I was referring to a political process that I
would like to take place (within the EU), not a judicial lawsuit in front of
the appropriate court of law.

Regarding your last paragraph: The Treaty of Lisbon does contain an exit
clause[0], which either requires the agreement on a withdrawal treaty or a
period of two years from the notification of the intention to secede. This
means that, within the current legal framework, it is possible

a) for the UK to declare its intention to leave and just do so in roughly
2015.

b) for the UK to declare its intention to leave, agree on an appropriate
treaty and then leave as soon as possible.

c) for the _other_ member states to leave (in 2015) and – in parts – form an
appropriate core union which is made clear to be more than a free trade zone.

Naturally, the last option is rather unlikely to occur any time soon, but it
would be legally possible and certainly not damage the reputation of the
Council of Europe (at least not more than Russia’s prolonged membership
therein).

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_U...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Withdrawal_from_the_European_Union)

------
andy_ppp
I will be writing to my MP about this disgraceful incident. I will be
encouraging others to do the same. In fact I will door step them at their
surgery and let them know that this is a line that's been massively
overstepped.

------
kevinpet
I stopped reading when he implied that the US was behind it. GB is a sovereign
country, and still a democracy. If you don't like the fascist laws people are
voting for, stop voting for them. If you blame some outside party, you're just
passing the buck and making excuses why you can't convince people to grow a
spine and stop voting for the status quo -- "oh, my people would never put up
with this, but the big bad USA is forcing us to". If your politicians have
signed you up to be the enforcers for a little mafia protection racket, maybe
they shouldn't be in office.

~~~
cma
"US is behind it" doesn't mean "US has sole responsibility for it, letting GB
off the hook".

------
alexhawdon
Disclaimer: This is largely speculative and WHOLLY me playing devil's
advocate. I do not condone this sort of behaviour by my government.

Could the case be made that journalists are legitimate targets for
investigation following on from Manning and Snowdon? My focus here is less on
terrorism and more towards counter-intelligence. Were I a rival nation-state I
would see an intelligence-gathering opportunity in what's happened: Rather
than bribing/coercing people into become informants, there is now the option
to invite them to 'blow the whistle' by posing as a journalist.

~~~
yk
If you believe that the security interests of the state should always take
precedent, then this argument could be made. However, this is of course a
totalitarian position.

------
roryokane
I don’t understand why this article so carefully avoids the word “spouse”. I
had no idea what kind of partner David Miranda was – business, romantic, or
marriage – for most of the article. The story only hinted at the meaning in
the third-to-last paragraph, about “detaining the family members and loved
ones of journalists”. Was this just bad editing, or does nobody talk about
“business partners” any more?

~~~
SEMW
It's just a style issue. From 2004 until very recently gay couples in England
could only get a 'civil partnership', not a marriage; possibly because of that
'X is Y's partner' in the UK is these days understood as meaning a romantic
attachment. (The business meaning still exists, but is phrased as e.g. "X and
Y are both partners at Foobar LLP" rather than "X is Y's partner").

------
ad80
They do it because they can and they learned that the public will scream for a
few days and move on with their daily problems soon after.

It's sad, very sad. I am pessimistic and I have an impression looking at how
Obama and co. are lying without any consequences, what NSA has being doing and
other recent examples, that we lost that war and we have no tools to fight
against it.

------
northwest
Effing cheap intimidation pricks. One day it will come back to haunt them.

------
saraid216
Does anyone have the original article link? There are several indications in
the comments that it was changed by an HN editor.

~~~
m1
The original article link was
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-
greenwald...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-
guardian-partner-detained-heathrow)

The title was edited by the mods at least twice.

~~~
bwindels
Original link was AFAIK
[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...](http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-
miranda-detained-uk-nsa)

------
w_t_payne
Not really relevant, but I am greatly amused between the current relationship
that we have with our security services and the situation that Terry Gilliam
portrays in his excellent film: "Brazil".

After all, when the security state starts to be driven by the profit motive,
were we really so naive as to expect anything less?

------
tmslnz
Unlikely and perhaps wrong under most perspectives, but as soon as I read
Greenwald's account I thought "shit, he's caught the bait". The government and
those detaining his man were wholly aware of what a shitstorm this would have
caused. I would have LOVED to see the alternative scenario, where Greenwald
tells Miranda "Don't tell anyone else.". The police wouldn't and couldn't
speak publicly, no-one gets to know about the event, the political game of
those who had this brilliant idea is now in pieces. The gov's option at that
point would have been to further escalate their offensive, exposing themselves
even more. Instead what we got now is a lawful, yet badly-intentioned use of
the law, which is grave, but likely insufficient to warrant & spark any
significant tectonic movements.

------
eplumlee
It seems to me that a good line to draw regarding overreach by the government
is to determine who or what they're efforts are protecting. Terrorism laws
were sold to us as necessary to protect the people. More recently, it seems
that the efforts of the government has been to protect itself FROM the people.

------
DigitalSea
There's no doubt "terrorism" laws are abused on a daily basis to intimidate
and scare people into being good citizens, the question here is who in the
chain of command and how far up the chain did the order get carried down from
and why? This whole NSA, Prism stuff is getting out of hand. It's not a nice
feeling living in a world where Governments are spying on their citizens and
those abroad in plain sight and knowing there is nothing anyone can do about
it except go off the grid completely and well, it's 2013, it's not exactly
easy to do that.

I can only hope that this incident is investigated further and that we get
some solid answers from those in power about why David had been detained for
the legally permitted time of 9 hours without charge.

------
boi_v2
I find awesome when this kind of thing happen, It makes pretty clear how the
law is manipulated to protect those in power, the fear politics is obviously a
strategy to intimidate and control the masses but fortunately, with this kind
of abuses, it is becoming more and more apparently.

------
brohoolio
How long until the organizations that protect us meet the definition of
terrorists themselves?

~~~
jacquesm
Depending on the country some have already reached that definition. Terrorism
is a nebulous enough term that it can be made to fit a large variety of
entities. That's exactly why it was chosen.

------
shiven
Pressure-intimidation tactic? Turn up the indignation up a few notches to make
Greenwald trip and release more/all NSA-related information in one go, instead
of the slow drip-of-death that is making them look like liars with every
denial they make.

------
rmc
The UK has a long history of abusing anti-terrorism laws. Just look at
Northern Ireland.

------
asaarinen
I'd guess what they were looking for was any one of the leaked top-secret NSA
documents on his laptop, the hard drive of which is being analyzed as we
speak...

Had they found anything during the 9 hours, I'm afraid he wouldn't be flying
to Brazil - he would have been detained indefinitely as a "terror" suspect in
order to intimidate Greenwald even more.

------
jusben1369
I was just saying on a post the other day how badly the government(s) are
losing the PR battle. Quite amazing:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6223584)

------
pinaceae
so this is one side of the story. no one knows what happened during that
questioning, why amd how it started and how his partner acted.

case in point, there was this guy who stripped naked at a TSA check a while
back.

you yourself can easily trigger an incident like this and escalate it.

right now there is one side of the story, reported by a deeply involved, non-
objective actor. if you ask a parent about what happened to their kid in
school when it was expelled you'll also get a very subjective, partisan take.

this "discussion" here smells of the reddit hivemind, quickly jumping to
conclusion, throwing around terms like fascism and full of nerd bravado.
nobody asks what really happened.

~~~
pinaceae
and to the downvoters - there are now emerging articles that Miranda was
carrying classified information. so yeah, more sides to the story, but who
gives a shit because fascism.

~~~
eCa
Is it terrorism to carry classified information?

> Terrorism: The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political
> aims. [1]

Ok... Someone with a lot of power is too easily intimidated.

[1]
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition](http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=terrorism+definition)

~~~
pinaceae
no, but if the person is not allowed to carry/possess it, he/she might be
breaking laws. the term 'classified' exists for a reason.

it is all 'ifs', which is my point - not much is known, the so called fog of
war is still in full effect but people around here are already jumping to
conclusions.

might have been a nasty way of intimidation, might have been a security clerk
reacting to standard procedure. no one here right now knows.

------
mehmehshoe
"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."

Wait...What? HFSMFCSWTF!

------
2a0c40
Disgusting. But may I dare to suggest that in his case it was extremely naïve,
if not outright deliberate, to choose an airport in the UK to change planes?

------
makerops
I know it is the British who detained Mr. Miranda, and not the US but Groucho
Marx would have loved the setup.

------
ChristianMarks
That's the last straw for me. From now on, my private communications are
between me and my deceased cat.

------
sklivvz1971
Welcome to dystopia, friend. We have polonium-laden cookies, would you like
some?

------
mrt0mat0
Does anyone else see the humor in his last name being "Miranda"?

------
brokentone
So what do we do?

------
LekkoscPiwa
if a 82 year old nun is charged terrorism than why not journalists and who
ever else that's not convenient:

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sister-megan-
rice-s...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/09/sister-megan-rice-
sentencing_n_3246071.html)

tomorrow this can be us just for posting the truth on the forum here folks!
Wake up!

