Can someone explain the guardian/David Miranda situation?

[Wannabestepfordwife]

Could someone please explain the guardian/David Miranda situation to me.

From what I understand the guardian have been publishing information from Edward Snowden on how the US and British governments are spying on its own citizens but I don't understand how this could aid terrorism.

"Literally the ONLY question is whether he was detained under the wrong law, not whether he should have been detained."

What is the definition of terrorism in TA 2000? Does anybody know?

here

it's not hard to google.

Scotland Yard would say that, wouldn't they? Doesn't make it true. They do have a history of making grand claims to justify questionable behaviour, then having to backtrack.

Do you think they're lying Edam?

Which do you think is more likely? That Scotland Yard is lying, about a verifiable question, or that a man on a flight being paid for by a newspaper which is investigating surveilliance and who is ferrying materials between two journalists investigating surveillance, one of whom (Greenwald) is know to have been in possession of classified information about surveillance previously, was on this occasion in possession of classified information?

Apart from anything else there will be big pot of defamation money coming their way if it's not true. The only thing stopping it from being defamation is truth.

So you think Scotland Yard are lying?

thanks Crumbled

i can see how the authorities argue it falls under the act...

no problem :) I don't know - I'm not that familiar with it. I'm sure they can make a case, but a lot of well-informed judicial experts think the case on the other side is good too.

It's an absolutely fascinating case!

I'm interested to see what the wider implications will be. Will journalists be less willing to take information from whistleblowers

Just one more thinkg

It's debatable whether whistleblowers acting in (what they perceive to be) the public interest are committing a criminal offence.

No it isn't - not if the law is broken. If the law has been broken it's been broken. There isn't a get out of jail free card - not even for journalists.

Is it actually a crime to be in possession of leaked documents? Or only when said docs are meant to aid terrorism? They can't be 'stolen goods' as being electronic the originals are still in place.

The drug mule argument doesn't work as Miranda presumably knew he was carrying a working laptop (ie definitely not converted into a bomb or containing drugs), but I'm unclear how obvious it would have been to him and and Greenwalt that the possession of the file contents was illegal (assuming it actually is)

I'm fairly sure that the decision to detain wasn't made in the spur of the moment and that all the government lawyers would have been consulted given the inevitable shit storm that would ensue.

I accept that arrest and investigation can lead to the establishment that the detainee is in fact not guilty, and I'm sure that the particular powers for arrest were definitely agreed at insanely senior levels. I also believe that journalists also can cross legal lines and should be subject to the same investigations as we lesser mortals.

Isn't it fascinating that the British police can do something the Russian police spectacularly failed to do, namely detain a party to whistleblowing? Who says democracy doesn't work?

Teabag: a crime's been committed under the Official Secrets Act if there's unauthorised disclosure of classified information. Also, Miranda has said he didn't know what he was carrying. As people are pointing out, there's no need to physically carry information from one country to another any more: so perhaps officers will take into account why the journalists were doing that rather than transmitting them electronically - ie what knowledge of the documents led them to make that decision.

NicholasTeakozy do you have a point? If you are comparing UK democracy and security services unfavourably with those of Russia, I think you may be on rather weak ground.

Wether substantiated or not we need to hear those dissonant voices to form an opinion.
I have utmost respect for journalists in this day and age.

This 'crime' was commited by an American, so how is the Official Secrets Act being broken? I find it funny that the land of the free and the democratic UK are going after whistleblowers whereas totalitarian Russia is harbouring one. Plus Russia recognised the neutral nature of a transit area when we did not.

IMO David Miranda's detention was aimed at Glenn Greenwald and The Gaurdian, to frighten them into shutting up. I'm glad it hasn't, we need to know what these crooked bastards are doing.

Come on Nicholas! the poor man is just a pawn at the mercy of russians now, you really think he's in a good place?

Its a thin line between "transit areas" and extrajudicial renditions.Short memory we have. shattered lives gone undocumented.

And how this all aids to fight against terrorism in our homeland? inconclusive so far.

IMO freedom of speech and freedom of the press are 2 of the best things going for this country and we do need things like mps expenses out in the open and I do agree the guardian was right to publish the articles about the us and uk governments spying on their own people.

However there's something about the way the guardian has gone about this that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If the story they want to tell needs telling then why did Greenwald or another journalist from the guardian or even an outside journalist take the information abroad.

Why did it happen to be Brazilian Miranda one of the few countries where we have no extradition treaty. This makes me suspicious of the guardians motives

He was working for the Guardian, so a potential crime on UK soil. Obviously there's no get out of jail free card for people of a different nationality. If he's working in the UK, he's subject to the official secrets act; a publication in the UK is subject to the Official Secrets Act.

You find it funny, Nicholas? I don't think I find anything funny about the lawless state that is Russia. The only is that Edward Snowden, who found surveillance such a challenge to human rights in the US, has sought refuge in Russia. Russia, of all places. The cradle of human rights, I don't think.

An attempt to frighten? Or to find out what classified information was in the public domain, or could shortly be?

The Guardian is so weak and pathetic. Remember Sarah Tisdall? That shame won't die for me.

Sarah Tisdall was a bit before my time so having a look into. Not very impressed by what I have read so far

With regards to Russia I don't think we can judge to harshly. I mean Giles Coren (thinks that how you spell it) could have gone to prison without anyone knowing for naming Ryan Giggs or our secret courts where you can go to prison for mentioning cases.

Hey wanna. They named their source, more or less, and she went to jail. Useless.

ps I disagree with you about Russia, completely

I know it's such a shame crumbled we seem to agree on a lot.

I have to admit I was disgusted by their actions I mean if the likes of Steve Panter are willing to stand up then a big organisation like the guardian should do the same

Crumbled, lol of course Snowden should've stayed in the US, where instead of having freedom he'd be spending the rest of his life in prison. That's what they do to whistleblowers in the states, look at Chelsea Manning and others. Are you naive or are you a shill?

We do agree on a lot wanna and also you're so interested in the ins and outs. I don't think you have to be anti-jurnalism or anti freedom of speech to understand teh facts here and we seem to be on the same page for sure on that.

Nihoclas Teakozy - I don't know what a shill is but I know what rude, bad mannered and lacking in cogent argument is.