The interesting thing isn't so much that HO defends the action, which was fully expected, but that it's twisted the position so it no longer has to defend an ab

The interesting thing isn't so much that HO defends the action, which was fully expected, but that it's twisted the position so it no longer has to defend an abuse of a law designed to specifically deal with terrorism. The difference between 'carrying documents to terrorists' and 'carrying documents that if leaked by accident to terrorists would have large national security implications' is huge. If you're carrying classified documents relating to a country's national security apparatus the likelihood is they're going to find something to trap you on, but the way they're going about it is thoroughly dishonest and sleazy. If you oppose the action of retrieving information and abusing one of our laws, then you must be in favour of terrorism and on the list you go. It's another warning basically, keep your head down or face the consequences. Add it on with the U.S. gov pushing for 60 years for Manning, and high level members of the UK government threatening legal action against a newspaper if they don't turn over/destroy material facts in an ongoing series of investigative journalism.