5 ms·

I was commenting on the misleading wording of cmdkeen's comment, not disputing the legal basis under which Miranda was detained. But since you asked... "You a

I was commenting on the misleading wording of cmdkeen's comment, not disputing the legal basis under which Miranda was detained. But since you asked... "You are attempting to board a plane in the UK, and the same tests apply to a simple change of flight as they do to passenger flying from the UK." Agreed. Transit passengers are subject to UK law. An important issue, though, is whether Miranda had actually committed any offence in UK law. Since he was ultimately released, it seems reasonable to assume that the police felt they couldn't establish that he had. Nevertheless, the judges in the present case found that the detention was a lawful means for the police to try to determine whether an offence had been committed. This seems reasonable to me, even though I'm sympathetic towards what Snowden/Greenwald/Miranda/Poitras have done to date. "Out of interest, if he had in fact stolen them from the UK (in the same way Snowdon did) would you object to his being stopped? What if it were Snowdon himself on his way to Russia?" First question: No, I wouldn't object. He could have committed a crime, even though I might argue that it was in the public interest. Second question: Depends on whether a crime had been committed by Snowden in the UK (unlikely, imo), or whether the UK had accepted a US warrant for his arrest (which they almost certainly would). Declassifying the documents just because they had been leaked would be absurd.

Ntrails 13y ago
"Depends on whether a crime had been committed by Snowden in the UK (unlikely, imo), or whether the UK had accepted a US warrant for his arrest (which they almost certainly would)" I don't know if he was carrying the documents when he left, if so the same offence as Miranda. Declassifying the documents just because they had been leaked would be absurd. Yes, but to me it seems just as absurd to have openly available documents classified.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  "the same offence as Miranda" Miranda didn't commit an offence in the UK. He was released without being charged with anything. Today's judgement was about whether it was lawful to detain him under counter-terrorism laws.
  - Ntrails 13y ago
    Sorry, yes, casual with language. Would have had the same reason for detaining, I guess is what I meant.
    - Zigurd 13y ago
      You may want to read why he was detained. It only emphasizes that the detention was bogus from the beginning. It was harassment, and the harassers should be punished.
mpyne 13y ago
> I was commenting on the misleading wording of cmdkeen's comment That's just it though; it wasn't even misleading. They were: - Materials relevant to UK national security. - Materials present in a UK airport. - Materials about to be sent (w/ Miranda) across UK borders. Those were the material facts of the day Miranda was detained. 'cmdkeen wasn't being "misleading" by not including the months of actions that led to Miranda being there with those documents on that day, because they really are irrelevant to the point he was talking about. If Miranda should not have been stopped because of press freedoms or whatever, then that would have been just as true if Miranda had been personally handled the documents by a GCHQ mole that morning, as if he'd obtained them in Brazil weeks earlier from Greenwald.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
logfromblammo 13y ago
It would be prudent to automatically declassify anything published by any newspaper, though. I think the reason why they don't is because that would be an admission that the documents leaked were actually true copies of real classified materials. But then they as much as admit that the leak is real by pulling crap like this. It would be far more effective these days to simply claim that the leak was all honeypot disinformation, deny that it has any relation to real classified data, and imply that the leaker was flagged as an insider threat from the beginning. When you arrest a journalist at the airport and hold him for hours, people might start to think said journalist is on to something. The smart thing to do would be to arrest him, make a show of searching him, and quickly send him on his way without seizing anything, and then tell anyone who asks: "After a thorough search of the documents in his possession, no actual state secrets were found. Materials purporting to be classified as Top Secret were found, upon further investigation, to be decoys used by the US government to reveal its insider threats. Mister Snowden stole a lot of documents and gave them to the press, but if any of them were the real thing, we haven't seen them yet." Between this, and destroying hard drives with angle grinders, they just look like Keystone Kops.

Ntrails 13y ago

"Depends on whether a crime had been committed by Snowden in the UK (unlikely, imo), or whether the UK had accepted a US warrant for his arrest (which they almost certainly would)" I don't know if he was carrying the documents when he left, if so the same offence as Miranda. Declassifying the documents just because they had been leaked would be absurd. Yes, but to me it seems just as absurd to have openly available documents classified.

andyjohnson0 13y ago
"the same offence as Miranda" Miranda didn't commit an offence in the UK. He was released without being charged with anything. Today's judgement was about whether it was lawful to detain him under counter-terrorism laws.
- Ntrails 13y ago
  Sorry, yes, casual with language. Would have had the same reason for detaining, I guess is what I meant.
  - Zigurd 13y ago
    You may want to read why he was detained. It only emphasizes that the detention was bogus from the beginning. It was harassment, and the harassers should be punished.

mpyne 13y ago

> I was commenting on the misleading wording of cmdkeen's comment That's just it though; it wasn't even misleading. They were: - Materials relevant to UK national security. - Materials present in a UK airport. - Materials about to be sent (w/ Miranda) across UK borders. Those were the material facts of the day Miranda was detained. 'cmdkeen wasn't being "misleading" by not including the months of actions that led to Miranda being there with those documents on that day, because they really are irrelevant to the point he was talking about. If Miranda should not have been stopped because of press freedoms or whatever, then that would have been just as true if Miranda had been personally handled the documents by a GCHQ mole that morning, as if he'd obtained them in Brazil weeks earlier from Greenwald.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

logfromblammo 13y ago

It would be prudent to automatically declassify anything published by any newspaper, though. I think the reason why they don't is because that would be an admission that the documents leaked were actually true copies of real classified materials. But then they as much as admit that the leak is real by pulling crap like this. It would be far more effective these days to simply claim that the leak was all honeypot disinformation, deny that it has any relation to real classified data, and imply that the leaker was flagged as an insider threat from the beginning. When you arrest a journalist at the airport and hold him for hours, people might start to think said journalist is on to something. The smart thing to do would be to arrest him, make a show of searching him, and quickly send him on his way without seizing anything, and then tell anyone who asks: "After a thorough search of the documents in his possession, no actual state secrets were found. Materials purporting to be classified as Top Secret were found, upon further investigation, to be decoys used by the US government to reveal its insider threats. Mister Snowden stole a lot of documents and gave them to the press, but if any of them were the real thing, we haven't seen them yet." Between this, and destroying hard drives with angle grinders, they just look like Keystone Kops.