

Amnesty International on the detention of Greenwald's partner - steveklabnik
https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-detention-guardian-employee-heathrow-unlawful-and-unwarranted-2013-08-18

======
alan_cx
So, we seem to have yet again redefined "terrorist". It now means: causes
embarrassment to government. Heh, well.. related to some one who causes
embarrassment to government.

Mind you, just read another article(1) about an undercover policeman gathering
dossier evidence on "troublemakers" for an employment agency black list. Put
that together with mass data collection, and hopefully Mr Nothing To Hide will
realize that, yes, he might well have something to hide.

The troublemakers, you ask? Oh yeah, the _evil terrorist organisation_ known
as: Youth Against Racism... (Yeah, that was sarcasm.)

I see another really scary phrase there too: "politically dangerous". If that
doesn't say it all, I don't know what does any more.

(1) [http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/18/police-
activi...](http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/18/police-activists-
blacklisting-agency-alleged)

~~~
pekk
British law has problems. Among them is the breadth of the Terrorism Act. But
I don't presume that this means that the UK declared this person a terrorist.

~~~
tlrobinson
Who cares if they "declare" him a terrorist or not? They're using a law
supposedly intended to help catch terrorists to punish someone who is very
clearly not a terrorist.

------
recusancy
Just playing devils advocate here: Greenwald did previously state that he was
going to send leaked information to his partner. So his partner isn't just his
"loved one" in this. He would be one of the leakers.

~~~
aray
Is there a citation for this? It's the first I've heard of it.

~~~
recusancy
[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-s...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-
snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html)

“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him
I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said.
“I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our
house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am
not saying it’s connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists.”

He said he didn't send it but implied he wanted to so it's very reasonable to
suspect he did later at some point.

~~~
jacquesm
One more reason to suspect the media & equipment taken had nothing valuable on
them. I'd assume after one direct hit against ones' person a more careful
approach would be indicated. That's still an assumption but I really can't
imagine anybody that has been the subject of a targeted theft like that to
carry incriminating data on their person across a border.

~~~
tedunangst
Lightning doesn't strike twice? It would be silly for the police to have a
dont search twice policy, because once such a policy is known, it provides an
obvious loophole for people interested in concealing or smuggling items.

~~~
jacquesm
No, of course they'd do the search again. But that doesn't mean there was
something to be found. Though the fact that he hand carried so many devices
including thumb drives suggests that there is a real possibility that he was
hand carrying bits. That leaves the question if those bits were valuable,
encrypted and whether or not the decryption keys were on his person or kept on
either side.

The data and the keys travelling together would be a pretty bad mistake, even
knowing the keys would be a bad move.

------
cheald
It's interesting to me that this release refers to Miranda as Greenwald's
husband, when everywhere else I'd seen the term "partner" used (including by
Greenwald himself). What's different here? The emphasis on the legal relation
being used as a means to underscore the abuse? How might this be different if
he was just his boyfriend?

~~~
olalonde
I might be slow but until now I thought partner was being used as in
business/work partner.

~~~
cheald
I think the ambiguity is intentional; it keeps the drama of gay marriage off
of Greenwald so as to not distract from the message he's carrying. However, I
think it's a _little_ cheesy to pull out the term "husband" when it's
emotionally advantageous to do so. Even if it was just a business partner,
harassing Greenwald's close associates would be just as heinous without the
need to stoop to emotional manipulation.

------
scoofy
I hope the lib dems move for a no confidence vote. At least that could cause
an election about these absurdities in west.

~~~
alan_cx
Cheers, best laugh I've had all day!!!!!!

Edit: Sorry, should explain. The Lib Dems are the minority junior partner in a
coalition government. The idea they would move to kill of their only ever hope
at power is a dream at best.

~~~
Angostura
They are also in the second half of the parliament and sooner or later will
seek to find issues on which they can distinguish themselves from the
Conservatives

------
nawitus
While Amnesty is doing the right thing here, the organization shouldn't be
supported as a whole. They for example refuse[1] to defend historians who go
to jail for politically incorrect opinions. Therefore they don't advocate for
freedom of speech but rather opinions that fit their own world view.

1\. [http://www.jta.org/1999/08/05/news-opinion/amnesty-
internati...](http://www.jta.org/1999/08/05/news-opinion/amnesty-
international-will-not-defend-holocaust-denial-advocate)

~~~
felixrieseberg
...interesting, as a German I'd find it more difficult to support Amnesty if
they did defend the 'historian' (you don't just get to call yourself that).
Amnesty does not support hate speech or calls for violence, and I'm totally
okay with that.

~~~
baddox
That's a perfectly valid opinion to have, but it's not very appropriate to
call it compatible with freedom of speech.

~~~
HarryHirsch
The German constitution does not recognize freedom of speech; what it does
recognize is freedom of political expression. There's a limit to this, though,
when it is perceived to endanger public peace. Holocaust denial and suchlike
has always been considered an assault on public peace. No public figure will
be seen denying the holocaust or similar, the only purpose of that sort of
statement can be to incite a mob. That's the background.

Now consider this: the German constitution was commissioned in 1948 by the
Allied Powers, there was much experience in the Commission that developed it
with constitutions of democratic nations, and the Nazi experience was fresh in
everyone's mind. I think the fact that Germany does not have "freedom of
speech" written in its constitution wants to tell you something.

TL;DR: Germany does not recognize freedom of speech. Germans consider this to
be a Good Thing.

------
UVB-76
Is this article not mistaken in referring to Miranda as a "Guardian employee"?

~~~
jacquesm
We could ask the NSA for verification I guess but there is no mention anywhere
on the Guardian sites or elsewhere that he's an employee so it is possible
this is indeed mistaken.

~~~
radicaldreamer
This NYT article says the trip was paid for by the Guardian:
[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-
detai...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-
partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?hp&_r=0)

~~~
jacquesm
Paying for a ticket != signing an employment contract. That doesn't mean there
is no such thing. I'd assume that the people that wrote that had some more
information than what's in the media elsewhere but still it is as of yet
unverified. And it would make a serious difference in this case.

------
nextw33k
If you are a UK voter, please remember to write to your MP:
[http://www.writetothem.com/](http://www.writetothem.com/)

Whilst it may feel like it does nothing. Its still an important part of the
process. They get to understand the public mood regarding certain issues.

------
Radle
O.o reading the other Article I thought about business "partner", pwnd me
hard^^

