

David Miranda Heathrow detention: No 10 'kept abreast of operation' - tpatke
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23769324

======
tpatke
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.

------
nicholassmith
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.

~~~
danenania
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.

~~~
nicholassmith
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.

------
ihsw
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.

~~~
frank_boyd
> 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.)

~~~
mikeash
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_.

~~~
ihsw
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.

------
Svip
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.

~~~
k-mcgrady
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.

~~~
Symmetry
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...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/e95/the_noncentral_fallacy_the_worst_argument_in_the/)

------
toyg
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...](http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-
images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/19/1376928526343/David-Miranda-010.jpg)

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

------
mercurial
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 :(

------
ck2
_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.

------
rwmj
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...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publication_filter_option=all&topics\[\]=all&departments\[\]=home-
office&world_locations\[\]=all&direction=before&date=2013-09-01&commit=Refresh+results)

~~~
harrytuttle
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.

------
josephlord
_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...).

------
harrytuttle
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.

------
einhverfr
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.

~~~
prawn
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.

------
MarcScott
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](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.

~~~
grey-area
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...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/aug/20/david-
miranda-letter-home-office)

------
eksith
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.

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

------
jacquesm
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.

------
qwerty_asdf
Just what precisely is this "No 10" business?

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

~~~
eCa
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10_Downing_Street)

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

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

------
speeder
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

~~~
alan_cx
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?

~~~
speeder
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?

~~~
cwp
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.

