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

Darg said:
Whatever your opinion of anyone involved, the Guardian, Keith Vaz or anyone else the facts of the matter remain that the police detained him under suspicion of terrorism. They must now explain why they suspected him of terrorism, I'm all ears as to what their reasoning will be!
Click to expand...

Indeed...very disturbing... 9 hours of questioning? Was the boyfriend on a terrorist watch list? On Interpol's most wanted? Seen knocking back a few beers with known terrorists?

Nope nothing of the kind... the rank and file police officers should be refusing to carry out orders which are quite clearly wrong and the legality of which is extremely dubious (depending on very loose interpretation of the terrorism act).

Just unbelievable... can we trust the police now? Where are the folk many moons ago who said there was nothing to worry about...if you have nothing to hide... its obvious this "terrorism" legislation is being used (yeah i realize its been obvious for a while now!) carte blanche to increase police powers and reduce accountability.

What disturbs me more...is that if you are a police officer then how the heck do you condone this? If you as part of this organisation go along with it then thats just shocking...
 
As long as the Government aren't proposing any new draconian laws under a 'banner' that will inevitably lead down the same path of abuse as this......
 
Caged said:
It's very important here to note that the UK Border Agency, or whatever they are called this week, are not the same as the police.

Edit: Now some reports are talking about the Met. Was he handed over or something? I'm confused.
Click to expand...

The UKBA don't deal with any terrorism-related enquiries, that's the remit of the police.
 
Disgusting abuse of power by UK security services! Using "terrorism" to intimidate and detain someone who has nothing to do with terrorism! Just because his partner published the NSA/GCHQ revelations, such an obvious attempt at intimidation! I can't believe they can confiscate all his electrical property and not return it or allow him access to a lawyer!
 
xibinim said:
PR disaster after another with the Police over the last year or so.
Click to expand...

To be fair it was probably the security services that told them to detain him and question! Just shows the police can't think for themselves! Really hope high level government minister signed it off, PR disaster for those morons as well!
 
If you go and read the legislation then you'll see that unfortunately the were not outside their powers on this one (see para 2 (4) of section 7) - it specifically states that you don't need to suspect someone before you can detain them to work out if they are a terrorist. I didn't realise just how draconian the powers were at the border.
 
Still paying for Labour's 13 years then. Still going to look very bad on whoever gave the order especially if he was detained for 9 hours and questions about his partner's work.

Officers should base their decisions on factors such as "current and emerging trends in terrorist activity", "individuals or groups whose current or past involvement in acts or threats of terrorism is known or suspected", or "emerging local trends or patterns of travel".
Click to expand...

Why has our media gone quiet on GCHQ's snooping?
 
He should consider himself lucky, you know how trigger happy our force is with Brazilians. I mean it's hardly like we're a glowing beacon of freedom and democracy or anything. We're not exactly "the good guys" are we?

They'll probably use whatever they find on his kit with a smear campaign. Just like we've done throughout history Gandhi, Mandela, Menezes.
 
ahar said:
If you go and read the legislation then you'll see that unfortunately the were not outside their powers on this one (see para 2 (4) of section 7) - it specifically states that you don't need to suspect someone before you can detain them to work out if they are a terrorist. I didn't realise just how draconian the powers were at the border.
Click to expand...

Surely if you detain someone under this legislation you should at least make it look like you're questioning them about things relating to terrorism?
 
The telegraph covered this story and their emphasis is different.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/r...sounds-but-our-sweeping-anti-terror-laws-are/

They agree the law is wrong but Mirandas made himself a person of interest by undertaking the role of document mule for Greenwald. Plainly under US law the documents Snowden gave Greenwald were illegal held and it would be reasonable to arrest someone for carrying them. The UK police might reasonably suspect that Miranda could be carrying document illegally obtained under UK law.

The law is wrong but I think the media framing this as intimidation is misplaced. This individual was a genuine person of interest, if he hadn't been a publically professed carrier of stolen documents it would be different.
 
PlacidCasual said:
The telegraph covered this story and their emphasis is different.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/r...sounds-but-our-sweeping-anti-terror-laws-are/

They agree the law is wrong but Mirandas made himself a person of interest by undertaking the role of document mule for Greenwald. Plainly under US law the documents Snowden gave Greenwald were illegal held and it would be reasonable to arrest someone for carrying them. The UK police might reasonably suspect that Miranda could be carrying document illegally obtained under UK law.

The law is wrong but I think the media framing this as intimidation is misplaced. This individual was a genuine person of interest, if he hadn't been a publically professed carrier of stolen documents it would be different.
Click to expand...

The documents are irrelevant it's still not terrorism! So to use terrorism laws is an abuse, yes he's carrying information from a whistleblower, but its not terrorism
 
what would have been interesting is if he refused to cooperate, can you imagine the **** storm if they;d tried to prosecute him.
 
As above. Agree on being of interest due to documentation perhaps being carried but MrMoonX is 100% correct. Not terrorism and it is clear the act from 2000 was cherry picked to fit what they wanted to do here and had no direct relation to the reason the man was stopped and held. It's definitely a massive abuse and twist on the power that the police have.

The major part of the story not told here as it is unknown is who gave the order and instruction for the police to stop this guy. We are all surely assuming it's been handed down from across the pond to our shores and then passed down to police to carry out. Which is utter BS as you'll all agree. The power the Americans have over the UK puppet nation is ridiculous and it is wrong!

This being another situation we probably will never know the full truth and story of sadly.
 
MrMoonX said:
Disgusting abuse of power by UK security services! Using "terrorism" to intimidate and detain someone who has nothing to do with terrorism! Just because his partner published the NSA/GCHQ revelations, such an obvious attempt at intimidation! I can't believe they can confiscate all his electrical property and not return it or allow him access to a lawyer!
Click to expand...

Did he not get his stuff back when they let him go?
I am unaware of the full details.
 
I might be being somewhat silly here, but why in this day and age would you travel anywhere with 'secret' documentation, when such things could be stored online in a host of places with little or no way to track you?
 
This is so stupid, I agree that the documents should have been stopped but what's the point in detaining someone and confiscating his laptop - haven't they heard of email? This is just a massive PR disaster by the police with zero gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom