It's a lot worse than that.

It's special measures taken against a person BECAUSE they are friends with a journalist who happens to have written an article that particularly displeases them.

I think it was Naomi Klein in the Shock Doctrine video who said that she had a special code printed on her travel documents that basically meant that every time she went through a port or airport she was detained and treated as a potential terrorist.

It's a blatant abuse of power. And it's a blatant abuse of power that they knew would be widely reported on. They just don't care about being seen to abuse power because they seem to be able to get away with it.

The worrying message out of all of this is that any hack who dares to publish anything that doesn't show government's in a particularly great light is suddenly going to find their life made 'difficult', which is the sort of thing you would expect from Cuba or North Korea.

Today, it's a Guardian hack working on the Snowdon story who is stopped at Heathrow. Next week, its a Telegraph journalist who happened to find out about Parlimentary expenses gets held at Dover.

Theresa May has said that those who have a problem with this should "think about what they are condoning". Personally, I think that supporting this action is condoning far worse.

Was he carrying CIA files?

If he was then TBH I think he's utterly stupid, the Guardian journalist Greenwald is a ****ing moron too.

If Miranda was carrying nothing then I am 100% in support of him. If he was carrying CIA files then **** him and **** this non-story.

Personally, I think this young man is a bit of a drama queen, but that is of course simply my opinion, and is not based on the iron clad facts as trotted out in previous posts by those confidantes who rightously opine "he is not a terrorist or in anyway connected with terrorism"

I shall now eat my slice of Battenburg with a sense of relief.....

It wasn't Edward Snowden or the Guardian journalist. It was the journalist's partner.

Provided you're happy to be detained when your Mrs does something untoward, I totally agree with your post.

[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/louisemensch/100231784/david-miranda-detention-why-i-believe-the-guardian-has-smeared-britains-security-services/Can't normally stand this woman but an excellent piece on this *cough* scandal.[/url

If Miranda was carrying classified files, he was asking to be detained.

Given that Miranda was traveling between Berlin and Rio Di Janeiro WTF was he doing going through Heathrow? Again, he was asking to be detained.

Miranda also works as an assistant to the Guardian journalist, so there isn't the separation which I, for one, first assumed.

My first thought was that this was an outrage and intimidation from the govt. But TBH at the moment it's looking like Miranda has set this up to milk it for all it's worth.

It might be if you ignore the straw men, untruths and a clear and unwavering missing of the point of the stoppage. But I didn't therefore it's another load of ensch bull[is[/ihit

Determine what makes a file classified.

Should all classified files remain so?

Do you trust the government to act honestly and within the law? If they are in breach of the law, do you expect them to declassify files identifying such breaches?

Does is it therefore matter who exposed said breach or how they obtained the information?

Or is this all a case of the government sympathisers living life by the adage of 'ignorance is bliss'?

How about, oh wizened sage of the seas, you actually explain your little rant in detail?

Sounds increasingly like Mr Miranda has acted as a mule for his journalistic partner or this Laura Poitras and carried stolen classified material (unwittingly or not - if willingly he's lied to airport security) and has spat his dummy now he's been found out. You can see the bottom lip when he's snapped arriving at Rio.

Don't want to be picked out for detention and questioning? Don't get involved in the first place. Choose to get involved and don't spit your dummy when you're 'picked on'.

The poor cherub was detained for a whole nine hours. Oh the trauma. I'd be more impressed if they bumped him off by shining a light at his limo as he raced through a Paris tunnel.

Its not scientific but Skyscanner shows no direct flights from Berlin to Rio, so he would have needed to change. He would have remained airside though so not technically in the UK. Who detained him? Do the Met have jurisdiction airside?

There are flights to Rio from Amsterdam and Paris.

The cheapest and most frequent flights are BA through London. But why in hell would someone deeply involved in the Snowden case, and indeed carrying classified files received from him, travel through London when it's just as easy to go through Paris? To me they were either completely stupid to go through London, or they did it deliberately because they knew he'd be detained and they wanted the scandal.

I've no idea about the jurisdiction issues.

Indeed, though he could easily connect through JFK (bad idea), Heathrow, Amsterdam, Paris, Frankfurt or Madrid onto direct flights. Perhaps the fact the Guardian paid for his flights limited his options?

I don't work for the Guardian either, and I'm not a journalist. But I quite fancy a trip to Rio, so I was wondering if the Guardian would pay for my air fares too?

Paragraph 2(1) of Schedule 7 of the Act says:
[iAn examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b)[/i

Section 40(1) says:
[i“terrorist” means a person who …
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.[/i

But paragraph 2(4) gives a bit of wriggle-room to the police to determine (as per 2(1) whether or not the person being questioned appears to be a terrorist ... it says :
[iAn examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)[/i.

Bearing in mind that most people stopped for reasons of P2(4) are released within an hour rather than full nine hours allowed, this case does fall outside the norm ... and as Miranda was released without charge ... and as no-one, including the police, has said that there was any suspicion of him being a terrorist ... it does make the case newsworthy and does raise the issue of whether the law is being used/misused.

I know right!

They stamped it secret and everything, we don’t need to trouble ourselves with worrying about anything stamped secret. Only good things like surprise parties or presents from Santa are kept secret, Or Victoria’s secret, another good thing. Nobody ever did anything nefarious in secret and nobody ever tried to keep their mistakes and wrong doings secret. Especially politicians, the police and army. People in power have always, throughout human history been the most trustworthy ones.

He was stopped under Schedule 7, the act makes clear that police can only detain someone to assess whether they are: involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism. There's not a shred of evidence that Miranda falls under any of those three categories, therefore the stoppage was unlawful. Anything else is fluff and spin.

I have no doubt this will end badly for Cameron, May, The Met and the security services.

Mind you, I suppose Miranda should be thankful, the last Brazilian to fall foul of the Met was executed

Wrong.

The legislation states no suspicion is necessary.

Incorrect.

As Ajw71 has aready pointed out, "the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism". Just for you: [url=http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=379DB3B5D26A772080257A5C0048ABC1an idiot's guide[/url, courtesy of those fine folks at GMP.

[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danhodges/100231711/why-does-being-a-relative-of-glenn-greenwald-place-you-above-the-law/Another excellent analysis of events and why the detention was not only legal but justified.[/url

Thats why the word "assess"is used, he hasn't used "suspicion" at all, although why the police should be allowed to stop you just in case you are involved in terrorism rather than having at least a suspicion that you may be, I don't know - maybe that means we can all be detained for up to nine hours every time we leave home just in case, but especially if we fit a racial profile in which case the Met would appear to be the ideal force to administer this.

Where did I mention suspicion?

It's only an idiot's guide for an idiot like you.

Try reading the opinion of a man who [url=http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/21/terrorism-act-david-miranda-detentionhelped draft and present the piece of legislation[/url, Charles Falconer

DJP Hodges is yet another closet tory loon, with as much gravitas as your earlier link, Louise Mensch

That article is bordering on the pathetic. One of the main justifications for the detention is this:

So Miranda arrives at Heathrow. The UK intelligence services are aware of his movements, because that’s what intelligence services do. What’s more, they know he’s potentially carrying highly classified information that, if it fell into the wrong hands, could seriously compromise UK national security.

They [iknow[/i he is [ipotentially?[/i What sort of oxymoron is that?

That is simply guilt by association. Everytime Miranda has to fly through Heathrow or any other UK airport he will have to be detained because he is "potentially carrying highly classified information".

That being so wouldn't this only make sense if it applied to every other Guardian journalist, their partners and anyone associated with them or the paper?

The article also has a Guardian bashing agenda nicely illustrated by this little snippet.

"I’ve long ago stopped trying to get my head around what goes on at The Guardian. But we can safely assume that if Alan Rusbridger agreed to this drastic course of action it wasn’t because the hard drives didn't contain anything more sensitive than Polly Toynbee’s latest polemic against Iain Duncan Smith."

The trouble is Rusbridger has explained that he thought the demand for the drives to be destroyed was farcical because the idea in this digital age the data would only be held on those drives was naive.

Dan Hodges either has an agenda against the Guardian here or is as naive as those who felt they had accomplished something by having the drives destroyed. Either way this calls his position into question.

Did a pretty poor job then, didn't he, to include such a vague clause as "an examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)" in an Act specifically aimed at Irish Dissidents. Fact is, his opinion now means f*ck all. Whether the detention was lawful is the only relevant point - and it was.

Do you therefore think people should be allowed to pass through airports smuggling stolen classified and sensitive information? If you do you're a bigger fool than I had you for. He was a mule, nothing more. He was correctly detained and the information seized.


I forgot, you lack the intellect to see past the author. As always, blinkered and bitter. You claimed there were untruths in the Mensch article. I'm still waiting for you to post them.

Seems fairly clear to me. They know he's been to see this Laura Poitras character (one of Snowden's closest confidants and "one of only two people with full archives of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures"icon_wink.gif. They therefore know there's a strong chance he's carrying highly classified information. You might not like the grammatical sentence structure but that doesn't make it any less valid.

Let's not forget, the intelligence services were correct. Not guilt by association, just plain guilt. I suspect many Guardian journalists and possibly their "assistants" [size=85<cough>[/size fly internationally every day. How many others been detained under Schedule 7?