Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Can someone explain the guardian/David Miranda situation?

96 replies

Wannabestepfordwife · 21/08/2013 20:16

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.

OP posts:
bemybebe · 25/08/2013 22:07

"Plus Russia recognised the neutral nature of a transit area when we did not."

What made you think that Nicholas?

Original poster
Wannabestepfordwife · 25/08/2013 22:10

I know what you mean crumbled this is why I find this case so fascinating there's no black and white just loads of grey.

Please tell me you like a good glass of red and a g&t and I might have found my first mn friend

OP posts:
Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 08:55

Actually - I do. Can't drink white wine! Also a G and T but my favourite (when I can get it) is a gimlet. Cheers wannabe:)

NicholasTeakozy · 26/08/2013 09:14

Of course I'm rude, I disagree with your opinion. The Land Of The Free? is busy spying on everybody, and restricting their freedoms. We're heading that way too, and it's troubling. At least Russians are used to not having freedom, having been under a totalitarian thumb for generations.

I wonder how much damage the decision to detain Mr Miranda will do in the long term to Heathrow, given that other airports respect that transit areas are regarded, even by Russia, not to be sovereign territory. Which is the reason why the Russians said they couldn't arrest and deport Edward Snowden to the US.

HighJinx · 26/08/2013 09:44

I have just found this thread and have found it very interesting.

I just wonder if David Miranda was transiting through Britain because Glenn Greenwald and The Guardian knew this would happen and wanted the story. Perhaps David Miranda was a willing patsy.

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 09:49

No, you're rude because you said this: Are you naive or are you a shill?

You are on such weak ground, and so badly informed, in defending Russia that you can disagree to your hearts content but it won't make you right.

Original poster
Wannabestepfordwife · 26/08/2013 10:02

highjinx that's a really interesting point I could well believe it was a set up.

OP posts:
edam · 26/08/2013 10:06

Crumbled, there are indeed lots of bad things about Russia but it is striking that they did indeed respect the fact that parts of the airport are not their country. While so-called Western democracies have been busy spying on their entire populations, in breach of their own laws and certainly in breach of human rights.

Maybe it suited Russia to respect international space beyond their borders, or maybe it was a huge headache, who knows? But what actually happened was they respected international law and freedom of speech, while nations which claim to respect the rule of law, and claim to respect human rights, did not.

HighJinx · 26/08/2013 10:53

they respected international law and freedom of speech, while nations which claim to respect the rule of law, and claim to respect human rights, did not

This is very true. And very worrying.

edam · 26/08/2013 11:14

Russia would, of course, not have respected human rights and freedom of speech if it had been one of their own. People who try to challenge the authorities or to expose wrong-doing end up in prison or dead. That's why it's so astonishing that the US and UK have ended up being the bad guys in this situation - you really have to be going some to end up being on the side of evil wrt to human rights and the law when the other side is the Russian state.

MasterOfTheYoniverse · 26/08/2013 11:15

The only reason they have him is because of the amount of information they will be to exteact from him. Let us not be fooled.

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 11:26

Edam: I'm sure you're playing Devil's Advocate here. You know Russia does nothing in the interests of natural or civil justice, or human rights. Russia doesn't even do things in the interests of Russia. It acts in the interests of Vladimir Putin.

The UK is hardly the bad guy here. A crime may have been committed. If thousands of classified documents have been recovered from Miranda (and I believe Scotland Yard) then a crime certainly was committed, though it's unclear by whom. But whether or not the documents were found (which you doubt) it doesn't have any implications for the right to stop Miranda.

Miranda's lawyers' challenge (according to one of them last week - I think the terms of the letter are in the public domain but I'm not looking now!) is not based on him being stopped, but the law under which he was stopped. There is now a giant hoo-ha, which will progress and be reported in all the normal UK hoo-ha way. There will be judicial inquiries, reviews, blah blah. To say this makes the UK worse than Russia is beyond ludicrous. Sorry if that seems a bit extreme but I know you know what's what.

Original poster
Wannabestepfordwife · 26/08/2013 11:27

I'm totally fascinated to know what the information is and how it constitutes a national security threat.

I'm guessing if it does come out it will be a bit of anti climax

OP posts:
NicholasTeakozy · 26/08/2013 12:20

Crumbledwalnuts Sun 25-Aug-13 18:19:47

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.

Mr Greenwald worked on his reports (with others) in the US, Hong Kong and filed reports from New York and Brazil. Also, he is not a citizen of the UK. Mr Miranda was stopped under laws designed to stop terrorist suspects, not journalists' partners, even though they may be carrying information embarrassing to our government. If the data isn't returned all that'll happen is it will be sent again via the internet, so all the police have done really is make us look like a police state.

MyThumbsHaveGoneWeird · 26/08/2013 12:25

Thanks for your posts 5minutejourney. They are by far the best explanation of everything I have read anywhere.

HighJinx · 26/08/2013 12:47

The UK is hardly the bad guy here.

This remains to be seen. I agree that a crime may have been committed but it is NOT acceptable for the UK to use anti-terrorism laws illegally. It is also NOT acceptable for them to spy on people which is where all this started.

The fact that the UK's long term record on human rights is better than Russia's does not give the UK the right to be considered the good guy here.

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 13:10

You pissed me off being rude Teakozy so I can't be bothered.

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 13:37

HighJinx. It doesn't really remain to be seen. If the law was broken by the use of the wrong legislation, that's bad, but it doesn't make the UK "the bad guy" in any macro scenario.

Fiveminute journey's posts were actually a little misleading.

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 13:38

In fact I think the Guardian may be in danger of some egg on face.

edam · 26/08/2013 13:42

I disagree crumbled. If the UK has behaved illegally - which it seems very likely we have - then it is disgraceful. It is disgraceful anyway for two supposedly free democracies to put the frighteners on journalists exposing wholesale wrongdoing by the NSA and GCHQ. Journalists telling us what the authorities are doing in our name with our money.

Embarrassing the government is not a crime. Especially not when it is carried out overseas by foreign citizens.

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 14:19

A crime has been committed Edam. It's not just "embarrassment".

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 14:20

And it certainly doesn't make the UK the bad guy compared with Russia. Sometimes I wonder if people have ever left our shores when they imply that kind of thing.

HighJinx · 26/08/2013 14:22

If the UK are silencing those who dare to speak up about their own illegal wrong doings with threats and intimidation and cries of 'you've broken the official secrets act' then it is not just 'bad' it is terrifying.

Are we all supposed to blindly trust the Government to do the right thing because we're British and so they must be good?

HighJinx · 26/08/2013 14:26

I don't care if the UK is great compared to Russia. They have acted appallingly in this scenario.

Leaking Government secrets is illegal, dangerous and I do not condone it. However, if you know that the Government is breaking the law and misleading people should we simply sit back and let it happen? That is surely not why the secrets act is in place.

Crumbledwalnuts · 26/08/2013 14:29

Meh. Someone did break the official secrets act, and it's not new that it's against the law to do so. I haven't been terrified for decades, have you?

Don't get me wrong - this is a great journalistic endeavour. I think everything that's true should be on the page (unless it endangers lives). But don't deal in stolen/unauthorised classified documents and expect to be able to special-plead your way out. Oh he's just my boyfriend/just engaged in legitimate journalism/just a foreigner/just classified material don't you know. You have to take it on the chin. Of course the authorities have the right to stop you if you're going to be dealing in that kind of stuff. They have the right and probably the duty. Get over it. All this poor me nonsense is pathetic. (but then the Guardian is at its heart - perhaps they'll hand over their source again)