

David Miranda: 'They said I would be put in jail if I didn't cooperate' - m1
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow

======
acqq
Mr. Miranda: _They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put
in jail if I didn 't co-operate. (...) They got me to tell them the passwords
for my computer and mobile phone. They said I was obliged to answer all their
questions and used the words 'prison' and 'station' all the time. (...) I
don't even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been
for the movie that Laura is working on._

So he _did give_ his passwords (there's really a law in UK for that) and he
_was_ carrying something, exactly as the interrogators expected.

~~~
Splendor
From what I understand, under the Terrorism Act you're legally compelled to
cooperate with the questioning and you're not allowed to remain silent so I
have no doubt that those threats were real and that those questioning Mr.
Miranda intended to act on said threats if they saw fit.

~~~
MichaelSalib
I read a source indicating that that's not quite true. Rather, if you don't
answer questions at the time, the fact that you didn't can be introduced as
evidence in trial later on. I.e., if the police pick you up and question you
about a murder and you don't tell them your alibi, the government is free to
mention that in court to imply that your alibi was created after the arrest.

~~~
UVB-76
This is explained in the standard British police caution:

 _> You do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence if you do not
mention, when questioned, something which you later rely on in court. Anything
you do say may be given in evidence._

------
junto
Is it just me, or has the war of the state against the people started in
earnest?

------
TallGuyShort
I wonder if any of the law enforcement officials detaining Miranda and
threatening him with jail if he didn't cooperate fully appreciated the irony
of his last name at the time.

~~~
ot
Not from US, so I'm not sure I get it. Are you referring to this?

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning)

~~~
eieio
On US television it's very common to hear something along the lines of

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used
against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you
cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you"

when someone gets arrested. There's a page for it on tvtropes[1]. Obviously
it's a "real thing" as well, but Miranda Rights have definitely entered US
popular culture because of how often the above lines are heard on TV.

I'm pretty sure that that's what TallGuyShort was referring to, and I know
that the thought popped into my head as well.

[http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MirandaRights](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MirandaRights)

 _edit_ sorry, deleted instead of editing because I'm bad at computers.

~~~
nknighthb
> _Miranda Rights have definitely entered US popular culture_

It came full circle. As part of a refusal[1] to overrule Miranda back in 2000,
the Supreme Court noted "Miranda has become embedded in routine police
practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national
culture.". Rehnquist even opened his oral announcement by reciting the
warnings.

America without Miranda is virtually unthinkable. Tragically, there's no
equivalent cultural reminder of the 4th Amendment.

[1]
[http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5525](http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5525)

------
arbuge
This story makes me sad. It is egregious to use an anti-terrorism statute
against an innocent and obviously non-terrorist citizen in this manner. Saying
I expected better from the UK would be an understatement.

------
smegel
Can we all agree now that the slippery slope is real and had been slid down?

------
Zikes
> "I knew my country would protect me, and I believe in my husband and knew
> that he would do anything to help me."

Can the media please start saying "Greenwald's husband" instead of
"Greenwald's partner"? They're married, and "partner" has a business
connotation that's just confusing in this context when you don't know the
history of the couple.

~~~
Splendor
Glenn referred to him as "my partner" himself. Maybe this couple prefers that
term?

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

~~~
pbz
He also used the word "spouse" in some tweets. Doesn't look like there's a
consensus - not that it really matters.

