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.

I think they "began" long before they stopped him, otherwise they wouldn't have known to stop him.
During the nine hours, this "preliminary assessment" was begun.
As I understand it, he could have been held up to 24 hours without charge if it looked like there was going to something to charge him with ... or, if he was genuinely suspected of something under the Terrorism Act, for up to 14 days.

But they released him after the nine hours, not even on bail, to carry on to Brazil.

No one can ever know unles they see the material, and they are unlikely to make it public at this stage, to say the least. But that doesn't detract from this discussion forum; the wild speculation and politically motivated comments (from either side ) provide huge entertainment to readers like me.

They may be, but Miranda wasn't. If you want to be clever, at least bother to get a basic understanding of how Schedule 7 works. Specifically, examination under these provisions is N*O*T based on"suspicion of commission of an offence", but to ascertain if the person examined is or has been concerned in terrorism. It is a major distinction that you need to grasp.

The whole point of that is so that someone detained for examination cannot later argue that there were no grounds for suspecting them, and thus that the process was unlawful.

Now, if you wanted to contend that surely that's a mechanism for purely arbitrary stops, or else could be used to target (say) an ethnic group, well, er, yes, and indeed I believe there are a number of cases heading for Europe on just that point, but I'm simply talking about the situation as it is.


And how do you bail someone who is not actually in the UK, then? But as you are utterly confusing this situation with that of a person arrested under UK domestic law, I won't add to your woes. Come back when you've mugged up, if you like.

You don';t understand it correctly. Schedule 7 provides up to 9 hours and that's it.


As above, bail don't enter into it.

Look, I'm bored of this. Here, as a favour, [url=http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http:/security.homeoffice.gov.uk/news-publications/publication-search/legislation/terrorism-act-2000/Code-of-Practice-for-Examin1.pdf?view=Binaryread up on the basics yourself[/url.

How do the UK police lawfully stop and question someone who is not in the UK?

I posted the link. If you don't know, and can't be bothered to read, that's your problem.

OK it appears that a transit lounge is not a geopolitical black hole but from reading your link, where does Miranda fit in this list?

•Individuals or groups whose current or past involvement
in acts or threats of terrorism is known or suspected and
supporters or sponsors of such activity who are known
or suspected;

Any information on the origins and/or location of
terrorist groups;

Possible current, emerging and future terrorist activity;

The means of travel (and documentation) that a group or
individuals involved in terrorist activity could use;

Emerging local trends or patterns of travel through specific
ports or in the wider vicinity that may be linked to
terrorist activity.

The Home Secretary has explained this. The courts will apparently be asked to rule if the police were correct. Also, I already basically gave my answer when I posted:



You'd have to agree that, if true, that certainly amply fits the bill.

Only if you expand the meaning of "terrorist" and "terrorism" and then accept a "considered opinion" instead of facts and evidence

No, you don't get it. You're persistently looking at this the wrong way round. The police didn't and don't need any evidence nor any opinion, considered or otherwise. And the words used and which I quoted would certainly encompass terrorism. Apart from a Justin Bieber concert, what else could endanger national security and put lives at risk?

Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html

Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html

Quote ="Kosh"Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html'" Someone should have a word in the old duffer's shell-like. AFAIK once anyone has signed the Official Secrets Act, they are bound for life. I signed it in 1973 during a 4 week spell at British Aerospace, I'm still bound by it but am certainly no official. Surely it is the secret that is official and not the person sharing it?

Quote ="Kosh"Seems that Schedule 7 isn't sufficiently draconian or wide-reaching for Lord Blair: www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84355.html'" Someone should have a word in the old duffer's shell-like. AFAIK once anyone has signed the Official Secrets Act, they are bound for life. I signed it in 1973 during a 4 week spell at British Aerospace, I'm still bound by it but am certainly no official. Surely it is the secret that is official and not the person sharing it?

Isn't there an old [iYes, Minister [/ijoke in there somewhere.