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?
The law is ripe for abuse as written:
Miranda was stopped at the airport, presumably under the terms of Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7: "Ports and Border Controls"(on page 108)
"Power to stop, question and detain
2.—(1) An examining ocer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).
(2) This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a) he is at a port or in the border area, and
(b) the examining ocer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
(3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
(4) An examining ocer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)."(emphasis mine)
The law actually says, explicitly, that the powers of border detention can be exercised without meeting any standard of suspicion, 'reasonable' or otherwise. If that wasn't designed to be abused, I'm not sure what would qualify, it overtly allows up to 9 hours detention on any grounds whatsoever, or none. ('section 40(1)(b)' defines a 'terrorist')
Laura Poitras, who also received the Snowden leaks, has had this exact experience. Her 2006 film, "My Country, My Country", about Iraqis living under American occupation earned her a spot on the terrorist watch list. Since 2006, she's been detained at the border around 40 times.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"'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
If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?
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.
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
If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?
Joe Public is not meant to understand the law. Joe Public is just meant to stay afraid of the police so he is controllable.
Just publish the dam stuff and be done with it.
They are intentionally selectively releasing the data in order to catch the government in more lies. First the government says "we don't monitor Americans". Then the media releases proof that they do. Then the government says "OK, we do monitor, but we have oversight". Then the media releases proof the oversight is non-existent. This is more powerful than indiscriminately releasing it all at once, because it shows how willing the government is to lie about what it does.
I expect the remainder of the files to be released once all the lies that can be proven false are done with.
Thanks for noticing. This may be more due to slashdot's demographics changing than a shift in public sentiment, but who knows. Personally I get more gratification from rebutting authoritarians than racking up mod points. I've noticed fewer of those, fwiw.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Under the law, he is not entitled to an attorney. Furthermore, if he refuses to answer a question, under this law, it is a crime. The law is currently being challenged in the EU courts.
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!
Are you a complete idiot? All of this was known or guessed from the start. No one ever claimed he wasn't helping his journalist partner, the whole point is that even if all that you say is true, where is the connection to terrorism? You know, the direct association with terrorist acts that is required by the statute that he was detained under? It appears that all he was questioned about had to do with the Snowden affair. Even if you think Snowden was guilty of espionage, that is not terrorism! And helping to publish the leaked details, even if they are supposed to be secret, is not even remotely terrorism. It's pretty clear that the law in question was abused in order to send some kind of message, probably at the behest of the USA, despite the denials coming from Washington.