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.

If the government's breaking the law, bad. If the government's misleading people, par for the course. Look at Tony Blair and WMD.

But like I say, if you're dealing with classified information, stop mewling and puking when someone asks you about it.

I think what bothers me about this is the idea not the idea that David Miranda was stopped at Heathrow but that he was held as a terrorist and was therefore not entitled to the same rights as if he had been cautioned or even arrested.

The Terrorism Act gives the authorities removes so many of the individual's rights and is in place to be used when national security is threatened. I understand that this is necessary at times.

However, I feel very strongly that these powers must never be abused and the thought that they would be used to aid the covering up of the Government's illegal actions is terrifying to me.

gives the authorities Not sure where that bit came from

HJ that's the crux of the whole problem. That's what people are complaining about. That's the whole point of the whole controversy. That's what I said ages ago. That's the big question.

Tbh I don't feel that I can judge the governments actions untill we know what the information Miranda was carrying is.

I mean if he was carrying information about weaknesses in security for weapons stores then yes it's a great scoop and to some extent the public deserves to know but I would not want terrorists to have access to that sort of information

However if the information isn't really anything that could be used for terrorism then I will be disgusted and slightly scared by the governments behaviour

Wel this is where I'm wrong. If the government is found to have acted outside Sched 7 then officially I'm outraged. But really I can't get myself over-excited about it. I can't stand the Guardian and I think Greenwald is a hypocritical, self-righteous pipsqueak. But those are terrible grounds for not being that bothered about it. I know I'm wrong about that.

Crumbled - what crime? Miranda didn't commit any crime. He didn't even enter UK soil.

Thanks for pointing that out Crumbled

I missed that in your posts. I got the impression that you believed that Miranda got what he deserved for hanging out with a Guardian journalist regardless of what the truth of the situation was.

I know what you mean crumbled I'm not especially fond of the guardian.

I still don't understand why Miranda stopped in London. If you can't fly to rio from Berlin then Paris is geographically closer and you can fly direct from there. Was he given the information at the airport?

perhaps they'll hand over their source again

Oh dear. Their source is already well known. The US have put pressure on governments in Europe, Central and South America and Russia to not give asylum to Edward Snowden. France has admitted that the reason they didn't allow Evo Morales' plane into their airspace was down to the US. Cuba have said they were warned against allowing Snowden transit. Russia may not have the best human rights record but they don't kill kids with drones.

UK police should not have interrupted the journey of a man who was not on UK soil.

I'm glad all this about the NSA and GCHQ has come out, it makes people think about their online security a bit more. Like forcing https, ad blockers, disallowing javascript and stopping tracking cookies.

Edam - somebody broke the Official Secrets Act - of course. That's why I said "it's not clear by whom".

That's OK HJ. I just don't feel in need of lectures about right and wrong in this situation! However despite my own prejudice - it's an absolute joke that people are comparing the UK's democracy and civil justice with that of Russia. It really makes me think they should get out more.

Sorry NT not even reading.

Edam I am getting somewhat concerned about prejudice and defamation although no arrests (nor even anyone in the country so far as we can see).

So I'll say this instead: that if there are thousands of classified documents which have been disclosed (which I think SY is telling the truth about) without authorisation then police have a right to investigate, obviously.

I'll come back tonight and see if people are still posting.

Crumbled I certainly didn't intend to lecture you. I was responding to your comment that you had not been terrified for decades and explaining the reason behind my earlier comment. Apologies if it appeared differently.

UK police should not have interrupted the journey of a man who was not on UK soil.

I disagree with this. If it was genuinely believed that David Miranda was in possession of leaked classified information then I think it was acceptable for the UK police to stop him for questioning while he was in transit through a UK airport.

As I said previously, I think it is so unlikely that it is almost unbelievable that David Miranda did not transit through Heathrow fully expecting to be stopped.

We can debate this forever. What I think is the shame about it all is that it takes the focus off what the story is really about, the leaked information. Instead the spotlight is on a whistleblower stuck in an airport terminal for a month and speculation about Russia's reasons for granting asylum and on the potentially illegal detention of a journalist's partner as he took an unlikely route home.

I'm not saying these things aren't newsworthy or important, but they are also distracting.

I find it utterly hilarious that some on this thread think that Snowden spend all that time in transit zone of Sheremetievo and not some FSB flat having the leftover info careful squeezed out of him.

At least we all know where Miranda spent this 9 hours. And there is a legal process challenging UK authorities and their conduct. I am looking forward to the info where Snowden spent all these days and him challenging Russian authorities for not letting him board that plane he wanted to go to Cuba. Or Venezuela. Or another Land of the Free.

Guardian Q&A on these stories Seems they do give US and UK authorities the chance to comment and point out specific material that should be redacted before publication.

Quite a lot of "how come you decided to do such a great job?" type questions in there. He avoided this question

Can you confirm or deny the Indy's allegation that Snowden took 50k GCHQ wiki docs?

and this question, pleading criminal inquiry

Can you reveal if the files on Miranda's thumb drives were encrypted and whether you think Scotland Yard is "incorrect" in stating that they have reviewed the contents of these drives, having broken the encryption?

but says this - despite the criminal inquiry

Is Miranda's court case inhibiting your publishing of GCHQ articles in any way, until the case is resolved?

Answer:
AlanRusbridger - No.

and then there's this

Tricky to talk about what specific measures we have taken and are taking, but suffice it to say we use extraordinary care. This story is being reported from Brazil, the UK, the US and for a while from Hong Kong as well as being edited from New York and London. Secure communications and the movement of material have been by some measure the hardest challenges - we?ve had to do a great deal of flying people around the world

confirming they're well aware of what they were doing in physically flying information from place to place and, in fact, using Miranda as a mule

There's a lot more but I just can't bear to read the preening pomposity of it. Nobody buys their paper in the UK any more and they're just looking for a global share of the pie.

Sorry HJ I should have responded. No bother, you don't need to apologise for anything. :) ti's interesting

This story is being reported from Brazil, the UK, the US and for a while from Hong Kong

So Rusbridger is confirming what I said days ago. Glad to see I was right, as usual.

bemy, you think they were right to stop a man using a law designed (badly) to prevent terrorism when he was acting for a journalist then you are arguing for censorship and against freedom of speech and a free press.

Also bemy, if he had got on that plane to Havana the US would probably have forced it to land so they could arrest him and put him in jail for the rest of his life. Obama doesn't like whistleblowers.

And he was being a mule - just like I said

"when he was acting for a journalist" - NT you seem to think this gives you a magic golden ticket to escape investigation in case you may have broken the law or someone connected to you has broken the law. Why do you think this NT? I don't know many real journalists who think this.