Journalist working on NSA spying story held at Heathrow under UK terror law

MookJong

MookJong

MookJong

Soldato
Joined
20 Mar 2006
Posts
8,372
David Miranda whos partner has written a series of stories on NSA domestic spying was held for nine hours yesterday as he passed through Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro. He was held using the 2000 anti-terrorism law.

Miranda was released, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles

Full story here:

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/19/detention-david-miranda-keith-vaz-glenn-greenwald

Labour MPs are calling for an investigation to see if these orders came from the top. We don't have all the facts yet but this would appear to be an attempt at intimidation and an attack on freedom of the press.

EDIT:<Link updated with new info and reaction by Keith Vaz>
 
Last edited:
DVDs and games consoles, really? Who travels with games consoles?

Writing about the NSA and being detained for looking suspicious and carrying large quantities of electronics aren't obviously connected.
 
Those would be the same MPs who are members of the Labour party that started this whole ball rolling, were complicit in illegal detention and torture, wilfully joined and propagated war in the Middle East despite direct and unanimous opposition from the public and the international community.

I do think what occurred was wrong and a pathetic attempt at intimidation but for the Labour MPs to come out with this holier than thou attitude is pathetic when their previous party leaders would be on war crime charges if their nationality was different.
 
JonJ678 said:
DVDs and games consoles, really? Who travels with games consoles?

Writing about the NSA and being detained for looking suspicious and carrying large quantities of electronics aren't obviously connected.
Click to expand...

Nintendo DS, Vita? I have travelled many times with games consoles, totally normal. Last time I went away I had a Nintendo DS an iPad a DSL camera with 3 lenses mobile phone and a laptop. Nobody battered an eyelid.

Do you do much travelling?
 
Well, roughly. There are quite a lot of MPs and they don't tend to agree with each other. That's a bit like saying you know two guys, one of them loves fox hunting and one of them loves foxes, but they're still both guys and should be expected to behave identically.

I think the guardian is stirring up **** for the hell of it.

edit: Oh, right - I forgot about handheld consoles. I was imagining taking my old N64 on an aeroplane and that didn't seem very likely. Oops
 
JonJ678 said:
Well, roughly. There are quite a lot of MPs and they don't tend to agree with each other. That's a bit like saying you know two guys, one of them loves fox hunting and one of them loves foxes, but they're still both guys and should be expected to behave identically.

I think the guardian is stirring up **** for the hell of it.

edit: Oh, right - I forgot about handheld consoles. I was imagining taking my old N64 on an aeroplane and that didn't seem very likely. Oops
Click to expand...

funny thing is he was being questioned about the nsa leaks by snowden nothing else. funny how thats now classed as terrorism.

so i guess the words out now, write anything against america and face being picked up for terrorism.

weather you agree with the leaks or not, attacking the free press like this just shows how far the states are going to keep its own people in the dark over what actually happens rather than what foxnews msnbc and cnn get told to inform them what happens.
 
Alarming stuff. I think Keith Vaz is correct when he says that it's right that airport security staff can detain people who are suspected of terrorism, but that's not the case here so why was he detained? and on whose orders? Whoever ordered it, it was a colossally stupid thing to do, all it has achieved is bad press for the UK and consternation from Brazil.
 
Sounds like the usual bullying and intimidation tactics. Seems that the authorities can pretty much do what they want under the umbrella of terrorism. Certainly doesn't appear to be justified.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Keith Vaz's frequent jumping on topical bandwagons is quite nauseating. I read busybody Labour MP and thought of him straight away before reading the article.
Click to expand...

What is shocking is that Mr Vaz didn't think the bloke was an actual terrorist for having a games console in his possession because as Mr Vaz frequently tells us playing games will turn an upstanding citizen into a frothing at the mouth homicidal maniac within a few hours.
 
Von Smallhausen said:
Keith Vaz's frequent jumping on topical bandwagons is quite nauseating. I read busybody Labour MP and thought of him straight away before reading the article.
Click to expand...

Yeah quite right, as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee he should just STFU and let the police carry on failing.
 
This was pure intimidation, nothing else. Unless the police have suspicions that a terrorist is passing through our airports or a person likely to facilitate terrorist acts, they should not use anti terror legislation. The fact that the maximum nine hour detention period was used and then he was released is a sign that it was used purely for delay and obstruction to travel. Likely as the result of a blacklist of persons who have upset the NSA or persons associated with those people.

All it does is confirm the fact that we need to be told by whistleblowers and leakers of the extent of the security state and what they are getting up to in our name.
 
scorza said:
Yeah quite right, as the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee he should just STFU and let the police carry on failing.
Click to expand...

How exactly are the police to blame for this one?

Edit: Seems I was wrong as it was the police and not UKBA that detained him. Why would they stop the boyfriend rather than the journalist?
 
Last edited:
If you read the article written by Greenwald (as opposed to the follow up about how outraged Vaz is, which doesn't really add much to the story), which is here, it has this quote in reference to Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act.

The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."

But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying.
Click to expand...

Surely no matter how much you loathe the Guardian and everything they stand for, you have to concede that using the powers granted under anti-terror legislation to then question and detain the partner of a journalist for nine hours without charge or access to legal aid is overstepping the mark somewhat.

I'm not the Guardian's biggest fan, due in part because they feel the need to publish articles such as this, which just comes across like an attention-seeking child, but you can look at the facts separately from the paper that published them.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom