6 ms·

I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning. E

I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning. Edit: shocked is probably the wrong word it's hard to get surprised by this stuff anymore.

DanBC 13y ago
It seems odd that they removed property of a journalist. I was under the impression that journalists (and their materials) had special protections under English law. Once you get in the country you have different rights (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...) (https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights)
- sbarre 13y ago
  Is he a journalist, or just the partner of a journalist? Maybe since they know they can't intimidate Greenwald directly they are going after his family and loved ones?
  - LoganCale 13y ago
    I'm not sure what he does for a living, but he was in Germany to meet with Laura Poitras so he is at least somewhat involved.
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    Greenwald posted an open letter and from what he says in that it doesn't seem his partner is a journalist. He was however questioned extensively on Greenwald and his reporting for The guardian. Link to the open letter: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...
- nitrogen 13y ago
  Did they say that the partner was carrying information to Greenwald?
GabrielF00 13y ago
I'm shocked, shocked... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc
rmc 13y ago
I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning. You haven't read up much history of Northern Ireland? There is a lots of examples of the UK and anti-terrorism laws. Imprisonment without trial, etc.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  I was born in Northern Ireland and have lived here all but 6 months of my life so I'm very familiar with it :)
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    Then how can you make out that you're shocked by this? People who are arrested on suspicion of terrorism in the UK can be held for 28 days with out charge. From the 70s onward, anyone arrested in relation to Northern Irish terrorism could be held for 48 hours without charge. Holding someone incommunicado for up to 9 hours sounds like a distinct improvement by UK standards, sad to say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_legislation#United_Kingdom_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_legislation#Unit...
    - k-mcgrady 13y ago
      >> "anyone arrested in relation to Northern Irish terrorism could be held for 48 hours without charge" This I understand due to the threat level here. Bombs are discovered on a regular basis (I've linked to just one example[1] but if you take a look through the news in the last 2 months you'll find more) and the threat of terrorism is real. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23735805 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23735805
      - anigbrowl 13y ago
        You don't have to explain that to me. I'm from Ireland, I used to live in London, and I've seen bombs go off myself, so I'm quite aware of the risks to the public. What I'm saying is that it's disingenuous of you to express surprise about the existence of such laws.
muzz 13y ago
After 9/11, many people were detained for a lot longer than 9 hours [1] If only the same outrage that exists now, existed back then... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/national/25DETA.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/national/25DETA.html
anigbrowl 13y ago
This isn't new. The UK has long had wide-ranging anti-terrorism powers because the IRA were running bombing campaigns in (mostly) London from the late 60s to the late 90s. And every country has different rules for ports/airports, for the same reason they have customs posts there.
- switch007 13y ago
  The 2000 act listed the IRA as a proscribed group but it wasn't the focus of the legislation. There were major changes to "terrorism" legislation between 2000-2010. The 2001 and later acts/modifications were more a result of 9/11, 7/7 and the "war on terror" (and the UK being Bush's little bitch).
  - anigbrowl 13y ago
    And my point is that this is just an expansion of a pre-existing framework, in response to an attack of unprecedented devastation.
jrockway 13y ago
Where did it say that you could not refuse to answer the questions?
- jacquesm 13y ago
  Nowhere, it also doesn't say they don't get to pull a rabbit out of a hat and let you stay a little longer. Theorizing about being intimidated and kept without any form of process is different than being in the middle of it.
- Pinckney 13y ago
  That's what AI is saying: >Schedule 7 is the law that allows the police to detain anyone at the UK borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present. No lawyer is provided automatically. >It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer questions -- regardless of the grounds for that refusal or otherwise fully cooperate with the police. https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-detention-guardian-employee-heathrow-unlawful-and-unwarranted-2013-08-18 https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-deten...
  - tomjen3 13y ago
    Hmm, it seems that one wouldn't be in violation of that if every answer was "I want a lawyer before I am willing to answer that".
    - seabee 13y ago
      Responding to the question and answering the question are two different things. Explicitly refusing to answer the question is an especially bad way to dodge a law punishing you for... refusing to answer the question.

DanBC 13y ago

It seems odd that they removed property of a journalist. I was under the impression that journalists (and their materials) had special protections under English law. Once you get in the country you have different rights (http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system_e/law_police_e/police_powers.htm http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/england/law_e/law_legal_system...) (https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights https://www.gov.uk/police-powers-of-arrest-your-rights)

sbarre 13y ago
Is he a journalist, or just the partner of a journalist? Maybe since they know they can't intimidate Greenwald directly they are going after his family and loved ones?
- LoganCale 13y ago
  I'm not sure what he does for a living, but he was in Germany to meet with Laura Poitras so he is at least somewhat involved.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  Greenwald posted an open letter and from what he says in that it doesn't seem his partner is a journalist. He was however questioned extensively on Greenwald and his reporting for The guardian. Link to the open letter: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...
nitrogen 13y ago
Did they say that the partner was carrying information to Greenwald?

GabrielF00 13y ago

I'm shocked, shocked... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Gf8NK1WAOc

rmc 13y ago

I'm shocked that police actually have the power to hold you for nine hours, refuse you a lawyer and that you are not allowed to refuse to answer questioning. You haven't read up much history of Northern Ireland? There is a lots of examples of the UK and anti-terrorism laws. Imprisonment without trial, etc.

k-mcgrady 13y ago
I was born in Northern Ireland and have lived here all but 6 months of my life so I'm very familiar with it :)
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  Then how can you make out that you're shocked by this? People who are arrested on suspicion of terrorism in the UK can be held for 28 days with out charge. From the 70s onward, anyone arrested in relation to Northern Irish terrorism could be held for 48 hours without charge. Holding someone incommunicado for up to 9 hours sounds like a distinct improvement by UK standards, sad to say. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_legislation#United_Kingdom_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-terrorism_legislation#Unit...
  - k-mcgrady 13y ago
    >> "anyone arrested in relation to Northern Irish terrorism could be held for 48 hours without charge" This I understand due to the threat level here. Bombs are discovered on a regular basis (I've linked to just one example[1] but if you take a look through the news in the last 2 months you'll find more) and the threat of terrorism is real. [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23735805 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-23735805
    - anigbrowl 13y ago
      You don't have to explain that to me. I'm from Ireland, I used to live in London, and I've seen bombs go off myself, so I'm quite aware of the risks to the public. What I'm saying is that it's disingenuous of you to express surprise about the existence of such laws.

muzz 13y ago

After 9/11, many people were detained for a lot longer than 9 hours [1] If only the same outrage that exists now, existed back then... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/national/25DETA.html http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/25/national/25DETA.html

anigbrowl 13y ago

This isn't new. The UK has long had wide-ranging anti-terrorism powers because the IRA were running bombing campaigns in (mostly) London from the late 60s to the late 90s. And every country has different rules for ports/airports, for the same reason they have customs posts there.

switch007 13y ago
The 2000 act listed the IRA as a proscribed group but it wasn't the focus of the legislation. There were major changes to "terrorism" legislation between 2000-2010. The 2001 and later acts/modifications were more a result of 9/11, 7/7 and the "war on terror" (and the UK being Bush's little bitch).
- anigbrowl 13y ago
  And my point is that this is just an expansion of a pre-existing framework, in response to an attack of unprecedented devastation.

jrockway 13y ago

Where did it say that you could not refuse to answer the questions?

jacquesm 13y ago
Nowhere, it also doesn't say they don't get to pull a rabbit out of a hat and let you stay a little longer. Theorizing about being intimidated and kept without any form of process is different than being in the middle of it.
Pinckney 13y ago
That's what AI is saying: >Schedule 7 is the law that allows the police to detain anyone at the UK borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present. No lawyer is provided automatically. >It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer questions -- regardless of the grounds for that refusal or otherwise fully cooperate with the police. https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-detention-guardian-employee-heathrow-unlawful-and-unwarranted-2013-08-18 https://www.amnesty.org/en/for-media/press-releases/uk-deten...
- tomjen3 13y ago
  Hmm, it seems that one wouldn't be in violation of that if every answer was "I want a lawyer before I am willing to answer that".
  - seabee 13y ago
    Responding to the question and answering the question are two different things. Explicitly refusing to answer the question is an especially bad way to dodge a law punishing you for... refusing to answer the question.