Slashdot Mirror
Members of Parliament Demand Explanation For Detention of David Miranda
megla writes "Yesterday Slashdot covered reports that David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald was detained. Now, various MPs and other public figures have expressed their unease over the detention and demanded justification for the incident from the police. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has threatened to be more aggressive with his reporting regarding the UK secret services and to release more documents about their activities, Brazil has stated that it expects no repeat of the incident, and one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'"
Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'"
Of course you weren't: In fact, you weren't thinking about the potential for abuse at all when you passed this bill because even though you were warned by civil libertarians before the passage of the bill that such abuse was not only likely but inevitable, you were more afraid of the quivering masses of voters you believed would spend the next decade hiding under their sofas waiting for the end of the world to worry about such pleasantries. "This is war!" you told us, at the time.
Choke, now, on your own lack of foresight.
When the human race eventually gets around to causing its own extinction it will undoubtedly be caused by a total lack of foresight.
Who did what now?
I don't know what the laws are in Britain, but whenever an incident like this occurs in Canada, the response from The Man is always the same: "We cannot comment on this specific incident in order to protect the privacy of the individual in question" - Even though the "individual in question" is happily waiving their privacy in order to the story out there.
Greenwald has not threatened to be more aggressive with his reporting regarding the UK secret services and to release more documents about their activities. Reuters made that up out of whole cloth, go read his actual words.
If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.
True, but as you say that is true for all laws and we certainly cannot have a society without laws so this is a problem we will always have to deal with. So this is not something stupid: this is the first signs of the system hopefully working as it should. An abuse of the law has been brought to light and now those responsible need to be held to account for it with appropriate sanctions, i.e. not just a slap on the knuckles for something as serious as this appears to be. Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope that the system works.
I can't wait to hear how someone is going to justify use of terror laws to detain and question the partner of a journalist.
From what I've seen of the news coverage of this, this is pretty egregious and probably somewhat indefensible.
This is just more over-reach by government agencies who think they can do anything they want -- and quite possibly in response to a direct request from the US to put pressure on the journalist involved.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
That's what happens when you write legislation with a specific problem in mind that you want a nice knee-jerk reaction for. Then people point out the issues or possible abuses and you say "but that's not what this is for". Dumbass, it's not what you wanted that matters, it's what you actually wrote down and made into law that counts.
Did anyone read David Miranda's rights before they arrested him?
Actually, it was a gay, hispanic Brazilian who happens to be the husband of a white, male, British journalist. But carry on...
22 comments and not one joke about his Miranda Rights?
and if you can't square them, squash them. -- Harold Wilson (of the press)
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
I'm sure if this wasn't a white British journalist parliament would be equally outraged about illegal detention. Sure.
Erm, Guantanamo is in the US, and the UK has (in public, at least) asked for its closure.
David Miranda isn't white and British either. He's Brazilian.
Did he spend the entire 7 hours saying, "I don't know how to answer that question until I speak to my lawyer"?
In the U.S., you could do that.
Unless the interrogators violate the Constitution, and they would never do such a thing.
I want to see a new law, named after him, which protects everyone's rights in the UK against such detention. That way everyone in the UK will be a beneficiary of this new "Miranda Rights" law. Of course, it should differ from the Miranda Rights in the US in fundamental ways so as to cause the most confusion possible. Especially in internet discussions.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I think it was his mistake. He should have voice his Miranda's rights, to remain silent and not incriminate himself.
"'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'" demonstrating that pretending to be retarded is preferable to accepting responsibility for your actions when you're an MP
'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind'
Yeah, because broadly over-reaching laws never get used maliciously outside the intents of the lawmakers.
Seriously the world needs to step back and do three things:
a) Delete laws that impose behaviors for possession others (be it data, drugs, weapons or even kiddie porn), no assault crime has ever been committed by merely possessing these items.
b) Revise/replace laws to criminalize the behavior (creation/action) only to the action that imposes someones behavior on another (kidnapping, sexual assault, non-consent, theft) and do not criminalize behaviors where consent was given, or no physical/mental harm was imposed on another. (So as much as I'd love to see wall street people in jail for monetary damages, let's not waste the police or courts time going after wall street thugs and grannies torrenting files and treating them as the same thing.)
c) stop trying to "protect" kids... this is censorship and not protecting anyone. Put the blame where it belongs and hold parents 100% responsible for their children's behavior as long as they reside with the parents. The government has no business telling families what they can or can't teach or show their children. This is such a slippery slope when you start imposing state-controlled censorship on the public. Today "child porn" tomorrow "BDSM porn" next week "anyone who has a riding crop in a photo", next year, anything that can be used to whip people, like towels and belts.
You see what I'm getting at right? Data is only data, nobody was ever harmed by the act of seeing ones and zeros form a picture or text message. People need mental help if they're thinking those ones and zeros are compelling reasons to kill themselves or someone else, or are telling other ones and zeros to kill themselves.
In the case of the news article itself, this is no different than the Patriot Act in the USA. If you don't want to be intimidated by your government, quit electing morons into it. The USA is a bit of a lost cause and tends to take two steps forward and three steps back every time the party majority shifts.
No, no it isn't. Guantanamo is in Cuba, and the only reason it's there is because the US pushed the Platt Ammendment into the Cuban Constitution against their will.
The Cubans don't want them there, and they haven't cashed any of the checks for the 'rental'.
Guantanamo is actually a base the US keeps in Cuba against the will of the Cubans -- they view it as an occupation by a foreign government. It most certainly is not in the US -- they use it because it's outside of the US and they can argue that normal laws don't apply.
But don't pretend Guantanamo is physically on the US soil, or that the Cubans have any interest in keeping it there.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We need a FOIA of the London US Embassy call records the day before and the day of this premeditated attack.
This garbage is no different than the no-fly threats against the President of Bolivia.
Lets also say that the Agency has most communications that people have sent or received.
For each person, you could use sentiment analysis to analyze what they send and receive to figure out how they feel about the target topic. You could also build a database of possible small crime leads for that contact. Maybe they mentioned drugs or speeding on their social media page, maybe they angered their co-workers for some reason. Perhaps they use a file-sharing client or post on jihaddist websites.
The Agency can calculate the centrality of a particular sentiment using sentiment analysis on social networks. This would reveal those with the power to organize people into taking action.
Once the Agency has a list of these people, sorted from most likely to be a central communicator to least likely, they can then work on dismantling the trust of those in the network.
In order to dismantle the network, individuals must loose faith in their leaders. This can be done in a number of ways, most of them fairly simple to implement. Here are a few on the ones we have seen in the news, I'm sure there are many more:
Boom. A system to take out the subversives. All without people suspecting.
those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind
Bullshit, fuck you, bullshit.
That is the biggest lie I have heard all week. This is exactly what this legislation is designed to do: Make it possible to utterly destroy the friends and family of anyone that dares speak out against the regime. Mr Miranda (how ironic is it that someone named Miranda had his rights so obviously trampled upon), is lucky to not have been secretly imprisoned. Everyone even remotely involved signing the order for his detainment should be jailed.
I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
this is a cautionary tell that to continued drive to strip freedoms is taking its toll and moving western governments to a police state.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction
Doesn't http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Relations supersede the Platt Amendment?
Unfortunately, politicians don't have better IQs than the general population.
A lot of them do, actually. The problem is two fold.
(1) Politicians are only elected after they seek power. They want control of other's lives. It is really easy to go from there to seeking wealth or nepotism. As a group they are inherently corruptible (with individual exceptions).
(2) Since government power applies to everybody under its rule, it potentially applies to every facet of every life (constitutional protections notwithstanding). In order for a politician to do their job well, they must therefore be an expert at everything. In other words, in order to appear bright all of the time, they must be super geniuses.
(If you can't tell, I lean toward limited government.)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
"If one who practices gluttony is a glutton, and one who commits a felony is a felon, then God is an iron." Maybe misquoted... going from memory.
Point being, it's pretty obvious that God loves irony. It brings itself out of nowhere in far too many improbable circumstances in life, I have come to notice over time.
The Cubans don't want them there, and they haven't cashed any of the checks for the 'rental'.
The previous Cuban government was content to cash the checks, and Castro's government did cash the first check they received. They haven't cashed more as a protest against the US by the communist Cuban government.
Since there were Cubans that crossed the fence from Cuba proper to Guantanamo and back to work on a daily basis until 9 months ago, there are do doubt some Cubans that were content to see them there. Most likely there would be well over a thousand Cubans working there as there were in the past, but the communist government won't allow retiring Cuban workers to be replaced by other Cubans. As a result, the very good wages by local standards are not being paid to Cubans, but to workers imported from the Dominican Republic and the Philippines. Given Cuba's anemic economy the communist Cuban government is harming Cuban workers to spite the US.
Since many Cubans have tried to escape Cuba over the years to get to the US, it seems likely that there are more fans of the US than you let on.
1994 Cuban Exodus Remembered
When Fidel Castro announced that his government would not stand in the way of Cubans who wanted to flee the island, Domingo Perera saw the chance he had been waiting for.
A carpenter, Perera already had made rafts and tried to leave, only to be thwarted and imprisoned four times. After Cuba opened the door in August 1994, Perera, his daughter and nine others launched a raft toward the United States....
Today, Perera, 55, is a published author who owns a tile business on Florida's Gulf Coast. He said he is glad he risked fleeing his homeland.
"I never complain about this country," he said. "I tell people, `You have to thank God that this country opened its doors to you.' "
During a month in 1994, more than 35,000 rafters, or balseros, left Cuba for the United States, many aboard flimsy homemade rafts.
Marielitos' Stories, 30 Years After The Boatlift
In April of 1980, Cuban leader Fidel Castro declared the Port of Mariel open, permitting Cubans to freely depart for the U.S. In the next six months, an estimated 125,000 Cubans arrived in a massive wave on American shores. "Marielitos" remember their journeys on the 30th anniversary of the Mariel Boatlift.
I suspect that most of the Cuban people are bigger fans of the US than you. Maybe you have had a chance to wave a "Castro Si!" banner enough?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Actually, it was a gay, hispanic Brazilian who happens to be the husband of a white, male, British journalist. But carry on...
Actually, it was a Brazilian who happens to be the (same-sex) partner (as far as I know, they're not married) of a white, male, American journalist who happens to write for, among other news sources, a British newspaper. But carry on....
"In Germany, Mr Miranda had been staying with US film-maker Laura Poitras, who has also been working on the Snowden files with Mr Greenwald and the Guardian, according to the newspaper."
Jack of all trades,master of none
Namely, from the follow-up article:
"Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden."
In the helpful clarification from Wonkette, "he was actively participating in transporting secret documents that were stolen, and which it is illegal for him to possess." On a trip paid for by The Guardian.
So, maybe not quite as innocent a bystander as he initally makes it seem. But that was probably the point, and now British politicians are getting hammered for the abuse of power he baited them into. Well played!
How, exactly, is this an insult?
No its in Cuba. Thats why U.S. constitutional rights do not apply. Which is why Bush built the prison there.
"they use it because it's outside of the US and they can argue that normal laws don't apply."
This was an argument by the Bush administration that was rejected by the Court in Rasul (2004) and Boumediene (2008).
The prison is still in use today because Congress blocked Obama's efforts to close it.
This is why (in the USA) we have a Bill of Rights - to limit the damage made possible by democracy, aka mob rule.
This results in rich corporations being able to overturn laws they don't like which seems to be far worse. The best system I have seen so far is Canada's "not withstanding" clause. This lets the government pass any law it pleases, even if it might be in contravention of the charter of rights and freedoms, so long as it gets a two thirds majority and renews the law every 5 years. While this does severely limit the government's power it also hugely reduces the incentive for any rich corporation, particularly foreign US ones, from employing lawyers to overturn popular laws because parliament will likely overturn the court's decision and the company will be left with a large lawyer bill and zero results. It also means that any less popular, restrictive law that is initially deemed necessary in the aftermath of some disaster will have to be looked at every 5 years and will require support from multiple parties to pass.
All in all it seems to provide the right check on government power while still leaving the power in the hands of the people and not rich, corporate interests. At least it's the best system at doing I've seen so far but really, for any system to work, you need an engaged public to really keep a government in check. Unfortunately it seems to me that in the US people have largely disengaged and I can't blame them too much: even when they vote for someone who won a Nobel peace prize for not being like the previous person they end up with the same thing.
The MPs should really be asking what is in Snowden's files? If they knew what it was they probably would be think the anti-terrorism laws should apply. It could easily cost a trillion dollars if the information is released.
It could be SSL keys. It could be everyone's user account details. It could be back doors into every router. People should be demanding that they know what is on the disks so they can prepare in advance.
For those that wish to live in a "safe" world and eagerly accept the increasing limitations of freedom - "It is often safer to be in chains than to be free." - Franz Kafka
>> "those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind"
Those of you who were part of passing this legislation were morons and fools who, most unfortunately, will most likely never receive the drubbing you soundly deserve.
I'm not so sure Blair was a Catholic when he was ordering military action in Iraq, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, or Afghanistan. He openly admits to praying for guidance before ordering such action in a few TV interviews. He practically admitted that he was getting involved in conflicts for personal religious reasons.
Wikipedia claims he only converted to Catholicism in 2007, well after he lost the power to order troops about.
The British people control their government in much the same way the US people control theirs. I.e. they get a choice between two different brands of lying self-interest every few years and that's it.
(allow me to skip ahead please)
...
"The Operative: Secrets are not my concern. Keeping them is."
"because the US pushed the Platt Ammendment [sic] [wikipedia.org] into the Cuban Constitution against their will."
As compared to occupied Japan and Germany, that had constitutions written for them, and few objections were raised.
Philippines and Puerto Rico were occupied by the US at the same time as Cuba, it took the former ~50 yrs to gain independence, the latter may never achieve it. No idea what crazy constitutions they got at the time.
The law was used with its limits. But this is profiling... If this was Osama bin Laden's little Arab wife, they would shake her down for secret messages, the sand on her shoes, and anything else that might lead to intelligence, even now that he's dead.
Like it or not, the guy is partner to a reporter playing the "leaking game" he's just as likely to know "something" as if he was a "wife"... The "leaking" happens from inside his house too. His being sent around the world can be seen as acting like a courier.
I'll take the highest road, that this gentleman is not involved with leaking at all. That doesn't mean he won't have confidential documents slipped into his luggage by his "boyfriend" WITHOUT his knowledge to be dead dropped to mailboxes in other countries. Or that information on USB keys "finds its way" into his bags and his buddies set up a meeting later.
These reporters and agents in the "leaking games" aren't all to chivalrous.. They seem more concerned about their OWN ASSES than getting somebody else hooked. This was just like busting a Drug Dealer's girlfriend hoping to find drugs she didn't even know about, because a dealer can't help themselves not to get a free carry and screw the partner.
What I find very disappointing about this case is that you'd like to think have a two party political system would lead to the government being held to account and asked some very uncomfortable questions. That hasn't happened here. We've had the chair of a government sub-committee who is a member of the opposition and a previous home secretary, also member of the opposition, talk about it in public and both were extremely careful not to say anything wrong had happened.
In some ways the two party system helps them do things like this now. When Labour allowed the US to rendition people through Britain rights activists attacked Labour, now with this people are attacking the Conservatives, but in both cases the same thing would have happened if the other party had been in charge. Pretty much the same as the US and Snowden. People complain about Obama's behaviour towards Snowden but wasn't McCain the one who suggested Snowden should be sent to Gitmo? Republicans set the place up but we're into the second term of a Democrat president it's still there and we're using drones to assassinate people more than ever.
The only rule of law should be: do nothing that people will take you to task for. People generally know right and wrong...
You are forgetting two important things. First while people may know right from wrong what each of us agrees is 'right' or 'wrong' varies, sometimes significantly. For example is it right that a woman should be able to terminate a pregnancy? [NOTE: this is intended to show that we do not all agree on what is 'right' NOT to start a flamewar on who is right!] The other thing you forget is that while people may know the difference they do not always act accordingly - if they did murder, theft and rape would not be the problems that they are. These two simple reasons are why we invented laws. It might not be a perfect solution - indeed it often seems very far from perfect - but it is better than the alternative where we all live in mud huts and beat each other over the heads with clubs when we tick each other off.