Lets not forget they let him go after 9 hours so given they didn't arrest him they were proved wrong. They were unable to prove he was a terrorist and while you can argue the legislation doesn't need them to [isuspect[/i him of that, detention under the act is still only to [iassess[/i if he is a terrorist.

Of course it is guilt by association. He is the journos partner so henceforth every time he flies they must assume he is carrying classified documents and will need to assess if he is a terrorist. Same goes for every other Guardian employee. The fact other Guardian employees have not been detained just shows what a farce it is and why you ought to be suspicious of the motives behind it.

Should Rusbridger be detained at the airport when he flies anywhere? If not why not? Don't forget they don't have to suspect him of being a terrorist. They only need to assess if he is. Why would they not "assess" Rusbridger? Or his wife for that matter?

And by the way the grammar is important. The fact Hodges got so twisted with it just goes to show how tenuous a case he has.

It is obvious where this is leading. Newspapers will increasingly rely on couriers to communicate sensitive information they may have in the past transmitted electronically (encrypted or not) or even just posted. The security services will have to target more and more people if they "know they are potentially" doing this (acting as couriers).

The trouble is what they are doing [uis not terrorism[/u so assessing them as being potential terrorists is just plain harassment.

They seized what they suspected (correctly) he was carrying and released him. They weren't wrong: he was carrying stolen data. The Terrorism Act 40(1)(b) defines a terrorist as someone "concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". It's not hard to see how someone actively engaged in distributing stolen classified and sensitive, and potentially dangerous, information could easily fall within that definition.


It may be guilt by association with Greenwald and Poitras, and Miranda's movements prior to connecting via Heathrow, and probably other intelligence we're not party to. Let's not forget, they were correct and he was carrying stolen information. All this speculation is largely irrelevant, the intelligence was correct.


If they suspected he was carrying stolen information they probably would detain him. Further, if Rusbridger chooses to associate, promote and concern himself with these matters he should fully expect questions to be asked at some point. Otherwise our security services aren't doing their jobs and frankly it's reassuring that they've been so thorough.


Only if you're desperate to pick a hole. The bulk of the article is spot on. I care nothing at all for Hodges' alleged personal vendettas and frankly it's a non-issue.


Perhaps they shouldn't be communicating stolen classified and sensitive information?


If this had been some 'swarthy' [size=50(the accepted RLFans term I believe)[/size chap called Tariq from Peshawar no-one would bat an eyelid at the possibility of him being "concerned with the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". Yet when it's a Westerner who incidentally is banging some Guardian journalist he should be allowed to carry stolen data?

I love the line about 'knowing he may potentially be carrying....'


Have the autorities never heard of FTP, cloud servers, dropbox.....? I'm sure they must have by now.



It was nothing mor than an excuse to flex their muscles.

I admit to laughing out loud in the car when I heard on the radio yesterday that Downing Street had contacted The Guardian directly to insist that "THE computer" which held the documents in question was destroyed followed by assurances that "THE" computer had indeed had its hard drive trashed at government request.

Phew, so thats ok then, well done Downing Street for quickly ensuring that the stolen digital documents were deleted so effectively, no doubt some lacky from the PM's office was sent to The Guardians offices to witness an old Amstrad PC2086 being wrecked with a sledgehammer after being assured that THIS was the computer that the documents were being stored on.

Once again, parliament assuming that its public are as stupid as its representatives.

How do you know this?

No matter how many times you repeat it, it doesn't make it true



Since when have Brazilians been classed as "westerners"?

Seen as my response was ignored by LGJM about similar statements, maybe you could have a go at answering the below?

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'?

That's a rather narrow, naive and airily vacuous view.
Using the (legal) get-out clause in the act to detain the man and then letting the guy go after the nine hours ... without charge ... tells me that whilst it may have been legal to detain him, they were unable to charge him with any terrorist-related offence under any part of the act.
This calls into question the use (or abuse) of the act in this way ... given that it has been misused before.
The data has been destroyed (or at least the thickos in Whitehall think it has) but the guy has been released without charge ... don't you find that somewhat disturbing? If it was illegal data, why was he released? If it was illegal data, why is Rusbridger still uncharged?



Guilt?
They let him go after 9 hours, not on bail but leaving the country, uncharged with anything.
So, guilty of what?

The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.

The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.

Quote ="Derwent"The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.'" Bindmans (Miranda's solicitors) are currently arguing in court that as a transit passenger, he wasn't technically in the UK and there fore Schedule 7 had no bearing. the twitterati can follow @carlgardner for up to date tweets from court

Quote ="Derwent"The letter from Miranda's legal team to the Home Office makes interesting reading....... www.theguardian.com/world/intera ... ome-office Seems clear to me that the use of Schedule 7 was deliberately abused for the sole purpose of not only seizing Miranda's property but more importantly to force him to disclose the encryption passwords, as had he been detained under any other measure then he could not be compelled to disclose them due to the right to not self-incriminate (i.e. the right to remain silent). Schedule 7 allows for imprisonment if the person refused to co-operate and hand over or disclose any information that the police ask for. It is also telling that no tape recordings were made of his questioning nor was he allowed a pen and paper to make notes.'" Bindmans (Miranda's solicitors) are currently arguing in court that as a transit passenger, he wasn't technically in the UK and there fore Schedule 7 had no bearing. the twitterati can follow @carlgardner for up to date tweets from court

I'm not a lawyer. Neither are you probably. But when Greenwald (eventually) admits that he was actually carrying confidential files, it's pretty much good enough for me.

I have very little trust in govt's. My initial reaction was 100% against the government. But having read a little of the details of Greenwald and Miranda, I'm starting to have as little trust in them as I have in the government.

When this broke it was definitely along the lines of "Miranda has nothing to do with this story. The government are intimidating me through my partner". That has quickly been shown to be a a complete lie. Miranda was working with Greenwald, his flights were being paid by The Guardian, he was blatantly involved.

I don't like what the govt are doing. I do think they abuse powers and that should be a worry for every citizen. I think that they'll have some judge declare whatever they've done legal. But I think The Guardian have pretty much set this situation up and are milking it for all it's worth, so my interest in the case is rapidly disappearing.

It's become a case of political and legal football. TBH I want both sides to lose because neither of them are worthy of support.

I think you've misunderstood. The Guardian have frankly confirmed that they have taken copies of the files that were on the computer. They didn't want to hand the computer over because they want to protect their source and so the deal to destroy it was no more than the solution to that impasse. Not some weird belief that if they destroy the computer they destroy the files.

[url=https://twitter.com/LouiseMensch/status/369841559434326017Louise Mensch gets owned on twitter[/url

I didn't ask about this case in particular. I have already understood your position on the matter. What I was asking you was at what point is it ok for someone to be in possession of confidential files? You state your distrust of the government, so you obviously don't believe that they will come clean about any indiscretions, so it will have to take for somebody to break rank and give a journalist some information whether it is rightly in said persons possession in the first place or not.

I can't understand your position on the matter. You seem to be in support of the release of information, but against the persons releasing or in possession of the information. Miranda was possibly in possession of information similar to the information that informed everyone that the government is spying on us. Why therefore do you believe "He was correctly detained and the information seized"?

Did the computer have their sources holiday photos and a "If found please return to..." label on it ?

I support Greenwald's exposure of the UK and US govt's widespread surveillance of virtually the whole world.

I support Snowden's actions in revealing that to the media. I support the Russian Govt telling the the US to do one when they requested they extradite him.

I support the free movement of Greenwald's family and friends throughout the world when they have nothing to do with the story. But I don't support Greenwald's blatant lie that Miranda was an innocent victim of Govt intimidation when Miranda was blatantly working on the story.

If Miranda was taking confidential files through a UK airport then he also took those files through a German airport and was going to take them through the airport in Brazil. I can't understand why they flew through London. I can't understand why Greenwald could claim that Miranda wasn't involved in the case when he knew he was. I can't understand why he'd carry confidential files throughout the world's airports when he knew there was a chance he'd get busted.

I think that Greenwald has been given a career making scoop with the Snowden files. I suspect that success has gone to his head and he's gone from breaking a great story to try and make stories. I think he screwed this one up big time.

I'm happy with that.

Still not sure the police had the jurisdiction though.

Given he wasn't arrested he clearly didn't never mind "could" fall within that definition so their "assessment" of him as a terrorist clearly concluded he wasn't. The fact he was carrying stolen data as wasn't enough for his arrest either.



What he was carrying largely doesn't matter as it would only matter if it was an arrestable offence which it clearly wasn't. It was the abuse of section 7 as pointed out by one of the people who drafted it that is the issue.



I am not sure you realise what you are saying here. First off I don't see how they [icouldn't[/i suspect Rusbridger or his wife from carrying stolen information based on the security services and governments motivations here. The fact you seem to think if they do he is fair game is quite a scary thought. Why? Well he clearly isn't a terrorist but is the editor of one of the few papers that does any investigative journalism. It is to our benefit people like him call government to account. If his freedom of movement is restricted or he is harassed when doing this, by our government, we are close to being a police state.



If that stolen classified and sensitive information shows the government is breaking the law, why not? What would you have them do with it? Give it back to the government and ask the government to stop the illegal acts and hope they did?

If the government can exercise prior restraint (pre publication censorship) we never will find out if they are acting illegally. That is also one of the big issues here. Don't forget the government can prosecute if the Guardian breaks the law by publishing something from what it has is if that is illegal. The Government is not defenceless here. The Government wants to gag the Guardian and exercise prior restraint to prevent [ianything [/ibeing published. You should not be in favour of that.

What do you think they will publish? The locations of MI6 agents round the world or revaluations concerning illegal snooping on UK citizens?



His ethnicity has nothing to do with the point I made. The point was about what he did clearly not being a terrorist act or he would have been arrested.

It was also to protect the paper from legal action, which was the threat from government if they didn't destroy it.

They feared any legal action would result in what I mentioned in my previous post, that is it would allow the government to exercise prior-restraint and effectively gag them from using anything on the disc.

The fact the threat of legal action went away once the disc was destroyed suggests to me it [iwas[/i a pointless exercise that fooled no one except Louise Mensch and Dan Hodges.

Not that I've heard, but one of the counsel in the case told the court that it
"contains in the view of the police highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which would be gravely injurious to public safety" and " material the unauthorised disclosure of which would endanger national security of the UK and put lives at risk."

So, to put it neutrally, it is "possible" that Miranda was carrying stolen information, that endangers UK national security and that if it fell into the wrong hands, could put lives at risk.

Do you suppose they could be entirely making that up, and it is equally likely that it was just holiday photos?

We will never know, for the computer in question has been smashed to smithereens and right now lies on the floor in a corner of David Camerons office, which is peeving him a little because it looks to him as though the monitor used to be a tad bigger than the one he uses and he's just a bit ticked off that the lacky that he sent to The Guardian didn't have the sense to not put the hammer through the monitor screen but instead bring it back as a token prize for his liege.

Well actually Greenwald admitted it almost immediately, and Scotland Yard subsequently confirmed it: "tens of thousands of highly classified UK documents". So yes, it's true, now matter how many times you deny it.

So much so, having examined the data in part they have already launched a criminal investigation. "Initial examination of material seized has identified highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk. As a result the Counter Terrorism Command has today begun a criminal investigation."

In the meantime, Miranda, the poor hard-done-to innocent petal, has won a limited injunction preventing the police from using the seized data in said criminal investigation, but as they can continue to examine it "for the purposes of national security", that means very little.

No, you will never know. I'm perfectly satisfied that it contained stolen data.

Unless you are going to claim that no-one can "ever know" unless they examine the data personally? In which case we may as well all abandon a discussion forum, since whether the computer was smashed up or it wasn't, the chances of any of us seeing for ourselves are the same (nil).

So much so that, once they'd used-up their nine hours and apparently come up with nothing to charge him with, they let the guy continue his journey to Brazil.

Eh? The investigation by Counter terrorism Command that is said to have "begun" as a result of a preliminary assessment of the stuff seized should thus presumably have charged him on spec, before that investigation had even begun, and before the preliminary investigation, and before they were involved? I'm confused. How exactly would they do that, then? Is Dr. Who on their books?

People are arrested all the time on [isuspicion[/i of having committed an offence. The investigation proceeds with them on remand or bailed and either goes to court or is terminated with the charges dropped. Dr. Who is not required.