5 ms·

David Miranda detention legally sound, says Scotland Yard

32 points by tareqak 13y ago

mullingitover 13y ago
Nice of Scotland Yard to state exactly what the problem is with this situation.
logical42 13y ago
I guess that's why there's a difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.
JohnMunsch 13y ago
Criminals say, "After careful examination, nothing we did was criminal. Thanks for asking though."
- ncallaway 13y ago
  Sadly, this is the exact effect this is having on my view of government. I've lost so much trust in the government that I no longer believe anything they have to say. And not just on the always misguided war on terror; I've lost faith in anything that comes from most high-level government officials. James Clapper showed me the consequences of lying to congress, and I have no reason to believe other officials aren't also taking advantage of the leniency.
ferdo 13y ago
> "legally and procedurally sound" These claims were also made by the Church and the State during the Inquisition, except with the "in defense of the Faith" bit added for flair.
rhizome 13y ago
Just like with the NSA, CIA & FBI, the fact that it's legal is a problem.
malandrew 13y ago
Seems to me that the litmus test for the authorities to hold anyone under this law should involve either: (1) A known terror plot. or (2) Affiliation with an organization that has committed or is planning a known terror plot. where "terror plot" represents a some act that causes direct physical harm to the citizens of a country. If they cannot point to a specific, known terror plot or affiliation with an organization involved in one, then they should not have detained Miranda under this law. If they consider bona fide journalism an act of terror, then they should be forced to come out and say so, so that the people can judge how the authorities are using or abusing their power and adjust the laws to correct them. The citizens of the UK deserve to know what act of terror the UK government was protecting them from when they detained Miranda.
- LoganCale 13y ago
  If the government considers journalism an act of terror, it's time for a new government.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
coherentpony 13y ago
"We're not saying you broke the law, we're just saying it's a bit weird you didn't have to." -- John Oliver
homosaur 13y ago
The fact that SY thinks "legally sound" is the important issue shows how much of a disconnect there is between government and public. It's pretty obvious that half if not most of the crap the NSA is pulling the in States is explicitly illegal and that does nothing to raise the ire of most politicians, the president, the lamestream media, and the NSA itself. That's what happens with a police state, people are only targeted when they're on the wrong side.
Canada 13y ago
Why would anyone confide in a lawyer offered by their interrogators? How disingenuous to claim legal council was offered or available.
- youngtaff 13y ago
  If he was working for the Guardian why didn't he ask for a lawyer from the Guardian? Why did he fly through the UK when he was probably carrying UK secrets or secrets of it's allies? (or at least the UK security services would have suspected that)
  - radio4fan 13y ago
    He was not technically entitled to a lawyer. The Guardian sent lawyers to the airport when they were told of his detention. The lawyers were not allowed to see him. As for the second question, who can say? I'd say it's worked out pretty well for the Greenwald and the Guardian though.
    - youngtaff 13y ago
      I know he wasn't technically entitled to a lawyer but he was offered one (according to the Guardian's own report) While the security services may have over reacted the Guardian doesn't appear to be telling the whole story. Why didn't the Guardian say OK, take us to court when they were threatened for example.
      - radio4fan 13y ago
        >>> If he was working for the Guardian why didn't he ask for a lawyer from the Guardian? >> He was not technically entitled to a lawyer. The Guardian sent lawyers to the airport when they were told of his detention. The lawyers were not allowed to see him. > I know he wasn't technically entitled to a lawyer but he was offered one Not from the Guardian, though. I really can't work out what point you're trying to make. Is it that this story is a conspiracy by the Guardian to make the UK & US look bad? > Why didn't the Guardian say OK, take us to court when they were threatened for example. This is a totally separate event, but (Guardian editor) Rusbridger says in the comments to his article: "Play out the scenario for me in which fighting this case in court would have enabled us to do a better job of reporting the Snowden documents. I'm not sure I quite see it..." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters#comment-26171252 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-m... He further says in a comment to another article: "A plausible alternative to what actually happened is that the UK would have gone to law (as threatened). From that moment the court would be in charge of the Snowden material. The penalty for destroying it or refusing to hand it over could be extremely punitive. I mean, unlimited fines - not jail ." https://id.guardian.co.uk/profile/alanrusbridger/public https://id.guardian.co.uk/profile/alanrusbridger/public

32 points by tareqak 13y ago

mullingitover 13y ago

Nice of Scotland Yard to state exactly what the problem is with this situation.

logical42 13y ago

I guess that's why there's a difference between the spirit and the letter of the law.

JohnMunsch 13y ago

Criminals say, "After careful examination, nothing we did was criminal. Thanks for asking though."

ncallaway 13y ago
Sadly, this is the exact effect this is having on my view of government. I've lost so much trust in the government that I no longer believe anything they have to say. And not just on the always misguided war on terror; I've lost faith in anything that comes from most high-level government officials. James Clapper showed me the consequences of lying to congress, and I have no reason to believe other officials aren't also taking advantage of the leniency.

ferdo 13y ago

> "legally and procedurally sound" These claims were also made by the Church and the State during the Inquisition, except with the "in defense of the Faith" bit added for flair.

rhizome 13y ago

Just like with the NSA, CIA & FBI, the fact that it's legal is a problem.

malandrew 13y ago

Seems to me that the litmus test for the authorities to hold anyone under this law should involve either: (1) A known terror plot. or (2) Affiliation with an organization that has committed or is planning a known terror plot. where "terror plot" represents a some act that causes direct physical harm to the citizens of a country. If they cannot point to a specific, known terror plot or affiliation with an organization involved in one, then they should not have detained Miranda under this law. If they consider bona fide journalism an act of terror, then they should be forced to come out and say so, so that the people can judge how the authorities are using or abusing their power and adjust the laws to correct them. The citizens of the UK deserve to know what act of terror the UK government was protecting them from when they detained Miranda.

LoganCale 13y ago
If the government considers journalism an act of terror, it's time for a new government.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

coherentpony 13y ago

"We're not saying you broke the law, we're just saying it's a bit weird you didn't have to." -- John Oliver

homosaur 13y ago

The fact that SY thinks "legally sound" is the important issue shows how much of a disconnect there is between government and public. It's pretty obvious that half if not most of the crap the NSA is pulling the in States is explicitly illegal and that does nothing to raise the ire of most politicians, the president, the lamestream media, and the NSA itself. That's what happens with a police state, people are only targeted when they're on the wrong side.

Canada 13y ago

Why would anyone confide in a lawyer offered by their interrogators? How disingenuous to claim legal council was offered or available.

youngtaff 13y ago
If he was working for the Guardian why didn't he ask for a lawyer from the Guardian? Why did he fly through the UK when he was probably carrying UK secrets or secrets of it's allies? (or at least the UK security services would have suspected that)
- radio4fan 13y ago
  He was not technically entitled to a lawyer. The Guardian sent lawyers to the airport when they were told of his detention. The lawyers were not allowed to see him. As for the second question, who can say? I'd say it's worked out pretty well for the Greenwald and the Guardian though.
  - youngtaff 13y ago
    I know he wasn't technically entitled to a lawyer but he was offered one (according to the Guardian's own report) While the security services may have over reacted the Guardian doesn't appear to be telling the whole story. Why didn't the Guardian say OK, take us to court when they were threatened for example.
    - radio4fan 13y ago
      >>> If he was working for the Guardian why didn't he ask for a lawyer from the Guardian? >> He was not technically entitled to a lawyer. The Guardian sent lawyers to the airport when they were told of his detention. The lawyers were not allowed to see him. > I know he wasn't technically entitled to a lawyer but he was offered one Not from the Guardian, though. I really can't work out what point you're trying to make. Is it that this story is a conspiracy by the Guardian to make the UK & US look bad? > Why didn't the Guardian say OK, take us to court when they were threatened for example. This is a totally separate event, but (Guardian editor) Rusbridger says in the comments to his article: "Play out the scenario for me in which fighting this case in court would have enabled us to do a better job of reporting the Snowden documents. I'm not sure I quite see it..." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-schedule7-danger-reporters#comment-26171252 http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/19/david-m... He further says in a comment to another article: "A plausible alternative to what actually happened is that the UK would have gone to law (as threatened). From that moment the court would be in charge of the Snowden material. The penalty for destroying it or refusing to hand it over could be extremely punitive. I mean, unlimited fines - not jail ." https://id.guardian.co.uk/profile/alanrusbridger/public https://id.guardian.co.uk/profile/alanrusbridger/public