>I'm just trying to point out that there might be a logic to it Is there a legal justification, or is the gov't abusing its authority? Everybody knows that the

>I'm just trying to point out that there might be a logic to it Is there a legal justification, or is the gov't abusing its authority? Everybody knows that the gov't is embarrassed, and seeks to prevent further disclosures, does that give the gov't the right to break the law? >a) He was his partner but he was also acting as a paid employee of the Guardian correct? I don't know. >I read they paid his flight at the very least. So, it is not unreasonable for the Guardian to do so, since his connection to the recent Guardian stories are the reason for his detainment (even if he has no involvement). > b) Assumption by said governments would be "He's traveling from Germany from Laura Poitras back to Greenwald in Brazil. He's very likely carrying highly sensitive documentation from Snowden" Where is the connection to terrorism? > c) The governments still believe that is highly classified, stolen documentation. > So they pull him aside to see if they can intercept it. It's not clear if they have or not - we do know they took a lot of his equipment. Harassment When a politician says they need a law to detain travelers, without due process, in the name of preventing terrorism, I assume that means that the person may have involvement with an ongoing plot or operation to commit actual terrorism imminently. I am totally cool with detaining a person or persons who might be about to murder a bunch of people using a train/airplane. If wrong, the gov't ought to apologize, and make it up to them. When the gov't detains travelers without due process, in the name of preventing terrorism, and it turns out the person has only computer files/documents/etc. and does not have any bombs, weapons, plans to hijack planes, or any connections to persons who do, and everybody knows the traveler is not a terrorist; that's an abuse of anti-terrorism laws. There are other ways for gov't to hide its shame, instead a gov't chose to shame itself further. PS, I assume you meant "brought to bear"