

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

======
JeremyMorgan
It's the stuff like this that lends credence to the 9/11 truther nuts. While I
still don't think 9/11 was an inside job, it's very clear that the 2nd phase
of that theory is in full effect all over the world. They're using terrorism
as a justification to silence people and control us, right before our very
eyes. This is scary stuff folks.

~~~
harrytuttle
It's a shame that only about 5% of us give a shit about it as well.

It's working pretty well.

~~~
andy_ppp
5% seems very high. Maybe 5% of geeks? Maybe they'll just round everyone up
who wears glasses or just datamine our hacker news posts. Balls.

------
grey-area
A copy of the letter from David Miranda's lawyers is now available here:

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

Looks like they want to take this to the high court if possible.

------
devx
"A Home Office spokesperson said: "The government and the police have a duty
to protect the public and our national security."

It's starting to really piss me off how these governments think they can do
anything as long as they mention "national security" in their public
statements. It's like they think we're all morons and we'll actually believe
it everytime they say it.

Commenters here on HN saying terrorism should be treated as any other crime
are rights. Eliminate all "special terrorist-laws", and you'll stop these
abuses.

~~~
k-mcgrady
Another problem with the blatant over use of terrorism and national security
is that people are finally starting to realise it's bullshit. When there is
actual legitimate concern of terrorism or fear for national security people
will ignore it. No doubt they'll invent another phrase to get their point
across and we'll go through the same cycle of overuse again.

~~~
joering2
> people are finally starting to realise it's bullshit

Unfortunately when this happens, we have white flag terrorist event happening,
caused and sponsored by government, just to put people back in their places.
It seems to always work :(

I really don't know what the solution is, but this is not about pushing the
switch that will always jump back (if you understand my analogy). We all need
to come together and push it so hard that it will immediately switch over to
the other side. Those in charge who says that kind of bullshit will stand on
our side. Military called in to "cleanup" will refuse. Those who are about to
declare "martial law" will declare those who tired to gave that order,
terrorists.

This is the only change that, at this point, will work. Any other attempt will
put you in jail for long time or life, will get your belonging confiscated,
your family scrutinized and God knows what else.

~~~
dredmorbius
_we have white flag terrorist event happening_

I believe the phrase you're looking for is "false flag" or "black flag".

------
igravious
Dupe of recent
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242908](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6242908)

More comments there; BBC changed title of story.

------
DeeplySuspect
This counterproductive use of the courts is just the latest development in a
story which doesn't quite add up. Miranda said that the police asked him to
hand over all his passwords ("they got me to tell them the passwords for my
computer and mobile phone"), and (in the same interview) claimed "he didn't
have a role", but then Rusbridger says (in the same article) that "[Greenwald]
is regularly helped by David Miranda. Miranda is not a journalist, but he
still plays a valuable role in helping his partner do his journalistic work."
Miranda also claims that he didn't know what he was carrying, despite
assisting his partner, visiting this film-maker, and knowing all the
passwords!

Greenwald, the Guardian et. al don't get it: in order to convince me that they
are in the right about surveillance, they need to be _beyond reproach_. I
don't necessarily agree with the use of surveillance programs, but I certainly
don't agree with the cynical truth-mangling tactics of the other side: because
the truth is really the only advantage that side has. How did we get into this
situation?

~~~
ferdo
> they need to be beyond reproach

I don't understand this thinking. Greenwald and the Guardian have very little
power in comparison to the intel agencies and governments they report on. Why
is their conduct more important than the people they're reporting on, people
we already know are misusing law and the power of government?

If anything, intel agencies and governments need to convince me they're beyond
reproach or I'm just going to assume that their amoral ways will only get
worse.

~~~
DeeplySuspect
All I want is the truth. The details are inconsistent - someone's being
economical with the truth. We found out that the NSA lied repeatedly, and I'll
be bitterly disappointed if the other side doesn't hold itself to the high
standards it (and we) expect of our governments.

~~~
ferdo
I trust Greenwald more than I trust the NSA and the government. Glenn doesn't
spy on me, for one.

~~~
DeeplySuspect
Another inconsistency: check out Greenwald's original write-up [1]

> 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 [...] said David was not

> allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow

> me to talk to him.

But then, in the report on Greenwald's detention [2]:

> He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he

> refused both because he did not trust the authorities.

Let's be honest: if the official was lying, Greenwald would have pointed it
out. So why didn't he? Greenwald just _presumes_ that I'll believe him since
he's so much more trustworthy than a sinister figure on the end of a phone.
That presumption must end.

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

[2] [http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-
miranda-i...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-
interview-detention-heathrow)

~~~
ferdo
Miranda was offered a government lawyer at first, not one of his own choosing.
He was smart to refuse their stupid offer.

~~~
DeeplySuspect
He was smart to refuse the lawyer, but Greenwald's assertion that Miranda was
not allowed a lawyer present was not actually grounded in reality. This whole
thing stinks.

~~~
talmand
I have no issue with the statement.

There's a big difference between being offered a lawyer and being offered to
call your lawyer. If he was not allowed to call a lawyer of his choosing then
he was not allowed to have a lawyer present. A lawyer provided by the
government is just another agent of the government in the room.

Since many law enforcement agents at the federal level (in the US at least)
happen to also be lawyers then, by your logic, there is already a lawyer
present. No need to get another one involved.

~~~
DeeplySuspect
_There 's no logic involved_: Greenwald said something that _wasn 't true_
(whether that something came from him or the official who spoke with him is
not yet clear). Then the closer you look, the more emerges: Miranda in his
later interview said "I don't have a role" but then Rusbridger admitted this
morning that he _did_ have a role. Rusbridger then insisted that Miranda "was
not a journalist" but assisted his partner in "journalistic work". If the
NSA's position fell apart under such basic cross-examination, we'd be all over
it, so why do these guys get a free pass?

~~~
talmand
If you don't know where the statement originated then you don't know enough to
state that it is untrue. Either way, I still have no problem with the
statement. We are essentially arguing over semantics at this point. You say
any lawyer will do, I say it has to be a lawyer of his choosing.

I fail to see how several different people making a statement about the man's
level of involvement in the reporting is relevant to anything. The man says he
has no involvement so anybody else stating otherwise is mistaken. What's the
relevance to what's being reported?

You're complaining about it; we're discussing it; I fail to see the free pass
they have supposedly received.

