Quite surprised to see no topic debating the (un)lawful detention of a 'terrorist'. Nine hour interragation of the partner of a Guardian journalists' partner on the suspicion of 'supplying' information re: Edward Snowden.

Intimidation tactics or legitimate cause?

The paranoia fuelled anti-terror laws have basically given the police carte blanche to do whatever they want so long as they can attach some terrorism aspect to it, however spurious and tenuous the link. It's for our own good according to patronising politicians, and it'll get worse over time. They take away our freedom, in the name of liberty.......

Is there any debate to be had?

The govt are completely wrong to pull that s**t. It should probably be illegal, but hey, the people who will be deciding whether it's illegal are the same people who are pulling this s**t.

Labour could make something out of it, but they did this s**t over the Iraq invasion and they'll be doing more of the same when they're in power, so they'll mumble a few soundbites but generally allow it to disappear.

Oh boo hoo. Who cares? People are detained at airports for hours every single day (the US is notorious for it, the UK has its moments), often turned back and put on the next plane out - but most often released a few hours later. Do we hear about them?

I know of one 50+ year-old man who was denied entry to the USA for receiving a caution for shoplifting when he was 12 years old, a caution that was no longer even on his record yet the US CBP knew about.

These people keep poking governments in the eye and expect to be left alone. Not going to happen. This is a man who has released classified and sensitive (possible dangerous) stolen information into the public domain, and he's somehow surprised and outraged by all this? Give me a break.

The police deemed it necessary to detain him and appear to have sought legal advice prior to the detention. He was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended and he was released a few hours later. Yet of course in this paranoid and cynical age that automatically means devious motives and a spurious explanation on the part of the security services. The detention appears to have been entirely lawful - or are we ignoring the law to suit our own agenda?

Why is this even news?

As far as I know (not much) he was held for the maximum nine hours on the assumption he was importing information detrimental to the security of the U.K.? Why did the U.S.A. have an 'heads up'? Why the need to destroy hard drives at Guardian HQ?

Just seems like plain old bully boy tactics to me. When the free press (and their partners) are subject to this, we are on a rocky road.

It's nothing to do with being paranoid or cynical, and everything to do with not trusting successive governments and their intrusion into daily life, their endless surveilence (Yeah, I know, 'well, if you've nothing to fear' etc. We all know they never make mistakes.) and the regular abuse of power.

They're supposed to serve us, not the other way around.

If you seriously believe the guff that you've written then there really is no hope

Can someone supply a list of all the keywords that Government surveillance software listens for in mobile phone conversations please ?

I just like the idea of some civil servant having to listen in on my phone calls to my mates on a Friday afternoon (PS - for women - males generally tend not to "chat" on the phone for 30 minutes when trying to arrange a night out).

"Aye up"
"Now then"
"You out tonight ?"
"Yep"
"Eight ?"
"Yep"
"OK"
"OK"
"Terrorist"
"Bin Laden"

Agreed, good post.

It's only in the news because the detained was partner of some journo at that left wing rag. They probably see it as a good opportunity to get some publicity - they need it afterall. That paper is on its .

Incorrect.

Its in the news because data collection of private and personal data of individual citizens has been in the news for several years since that left wing rag broke the News International phone hacking story, you may have missed it, basically it was a private organisation who broke the law by using illegal computer and data hacking techniques to collect spurious information on individuals who they wanted to snoop on, including a murdered teenage girl.

You may remember it now ?

Thats why its in the news, because some people feel a tad uneasy about how freely governments of all flavours ignore basic rules on privacy and electronic surveillance whilst using the paranoia of terrorism to cloak their activities - we elect and pay for them, we deserve to know at least the basics of what they are doing in our name.

a) Because the guy was detained under special anti-terrorism laws even though he was not/is not suspected of a terrorist offence.
b) Because, this time, they picked on someone who has friends in the newspaper industry.
c) Because it's not the first time that convenient anti-terrorism laws have been misused (e.g. the Brown government used it to reclaim money lost by UK citizens via Icelandic banks).
d) <Edit> Because No 10 ordered civil servants to contact the Guardian to tell them not to print anything obtained from Snowden.

All newsworthy topics.

HTH.

Theresa May claims that it was a police decision to detain Miranda and had no involvement from government. She also aditted that she was previously informed of their intention to detain Miranda. If so, she seems to have forgotten to ask one simple question: WHY?

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?