Partner of journalist behind NSA stories detained at airport under terrorism laws

The partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.30am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.
The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last under an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours. Miranda was then released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.

"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," said Greenwald. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere. "But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."

That was a very sneaky move by the authorities. I wonder did they get much information from him via the questioning or via his electronics equipment, and should Snowden be worried.

The Guardian says they are now urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities.

Link

is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


I think that line says it all. Using Government intimidation will cause other journalists and whistle blowers to think twice before investigating or reporting crimes committed by our government.

britian is getting like a mini america if the authorities have it in for you they will get you this is a warning to greenwald that the tptb can get to him it is a wonder he never had drugs planted in his luggage or something added to his coffee

reply to post by geobro


They probably have him bugged instead, ya never know these days.

It is awful, I mean whatever happened to 'freedom of the press'.

Now they have to worry about their families being harassed or worse.

I thought everyone KNEW not to take electronics through customs anymore else risk it all. Best to just encrypt it and throw it up on the web somewhere.

This should be both immensely offensive & frightening to everyone, planet-wide. Detaining this man blatantly says if the Americans don't like you, they can harass anyone who knows you, anywhere. If I were to become a journalist and had a big story like Greenwald's, my friends, family & coworkers could be detained, just like that.

This is disgusting. We should all be ashamed & humiliated to call ourselves "patriotic" or "prideful" Americans, because we let it get this out of control. We opened Pandora's box, but GO 'MURICA! anyway.

We are all enemy combatants. I'm not sure how blatant the elite is trying to make it to you folks.

Well, play the game and accept what comes. I'm not saying I like it or that it's very nice to do ...but nation's really get touchy when you break their laws on national security. Didn't GCHQ warn the British press in the first couple days of this that making GCHQ a star in the stories would carry some real nasty side effects?

I'm just surprised that they seem shocked this happened? Umm... This isn't a game and it blows me away, how many people are IN the 'game' in one form or another and have no basic grasp of the nature of it. Really??

They spend weeks collecting and reporting information that these organizations spy on everyone on Earth, do all kinds of very nasty things including rendition and torture or just outright erase people with missiles off drones. Yet...detention in an airport after going head to head with those same people...is surprising? It's surprising he walked out free...not that they detained him.

It's a deadly game these guys are playing and waving little cards with "rights" only means something to people who care what the law says. Wasn't the Guardian primarily showing how TPTB DO NOT care what the law is? So why surprised?

reply to post by wrabbit2000

Are you under the impression that this is his work partner? I'm pretty sure this is his life partner they detained. There is NEVER any excuse to do this to someone because of their significant other's job. NEVER.

A new low in the ongoing saga of the US "War on Terror(ist whistle blowers.)
Absolutely the "Pathetic Move of the Week Award" is due for this.

reply to post by WeRpeons

This appears more a direct attack on Greenwald than the goverment trying to send a generic message. Well it does send a wide message but I think this abuse was directed at him. If it scares others then they figure so much the better.

reply to post by Nyiah


I tell ya, I read the whole thing again just now, and I still don't see where the two of them didn't share work product or have the people asking, have reason to figure they both had similar knowledge?

Well... Okay... Then I guess the United Kingdom is in the habit of arresting, interrogating and harassing people for hours that have no knowledge or contact with the topic at hand? Now that seems real odd.....in fact, it'd be illegal and get the guy a lawsuit to probably retire on, in this nation. Security services or not. Do people not have that option in the UK to at least give them a reason to consider this with 100% and truly innocent people?

I mean, we're suggesting he actually had no knowledge then, right? I'd also be in court to pursue all that electronic gear back, if I were him..but again. does the UK even give that option to it's citizens? CAN you sue the Government itself and have a fair chance of outcome they really do NOT want to see happen? (as much as they'd love to close the courts here...I'm laughing regularly at the NSA losing motions and actions in court left and right at the moment. They couldn't win a traffic ticket by how it is now.)

As much as I think freedom of the press is under fire, I still think there can be legitimate reasons to stop certain people, including journalists, if there is a reasonable suspicion that that person may have knowledge of terrorist activity.

Let's take a look at David Miranda's itinerary details:

**Miranda was on his way to South America after having visited in Berlin with Laura Poitras, an American documentary film director and producer. This trip was paid for by The Guardian according to the article.

**Laura Poitras is on the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) watch list herself. Hmmm....red flag.

**According to Greenwald, she is one of two people (him and her) that has full archives of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures and she helped Edward Snowden publish the NSA revelations.

You can research Ms. Poitras' work on Wiki and see what type of documentaries she has made.

IMO, the authorities did the right thing in stopping David Miranda to question him. In this case, the dots were connected rightly. Regardless of how much the government is trying to minimize the seriousness of Edward Snowden's activities, I think they consider it top priority to stop the revelations and Miranda's recent travels were uniquely connected to an individual that had assisted Snowden in what the government considers illegal and dangerous to national security.

Greenwald spouts that it's because Miranda is his partner, but it looks like it is because of Miranda's own travels and activity.

Originally posted by queenofswords
As much as I think freedom of the press is under fire, I still think there can be legitimate reasons to stop certain people, including journalists, if there is a reasonable suspicion that that person may have knowledge of terrorist activity.

"knowledge of terrorist activity" ??? What? The only terrorist activity David Miranda may have is knowledge of NSA lawbreaking.

Let's take a look at David Miranda's itinerary details:

**Miranda was on his way to South America after having visited in Berlin with Laura Poitras, an American documentary film director and producer. This trip was paid for by The Guardian according to the article.

**Laura Poitras is on the U.S. Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) watch list herself. Hmmm....red flag.

Yeah red flag indeed. American documentary film director and producer = terrorists right? If she's a terrorist then arrest her or is that to far of a stretch even for DHS?

**According to Greenwald, she is one of two people (him and her) that has full archives of the 2013 mass surveillance disclosures and she helped Edward Snowden publish the NSA revelations.

The real and only reason. Government fear that more of their treason will be exposed.

IMO, the authorities did the right thing in stopping David Miranda to question him.
I think they consider it top priority to stop the revelations and Miranda's recent travels were uniquely connected to an individual that had assisted Snowden in what the government considers illegal and dangerous to national security.

Greenwald spouts that it's because Miranda is his partner, but it looks like it is because of Miranda's own travels and activity.

IMO the government wasn't just over the line with this one, they weren't even in the the ballpark. Yes it is their top priority to stop the information of their illegalities from becoming public. They did very bad things. This was a direct attack on Greenwald, the rest is justification.

Originally posted by wrabbit2000
Well, play the game and accept what comes. I'm not saying I like it or that it's very nice to do ...but nation's really get touchy when you break their laws on national security.

Your whole premise is bit flawed. There's no laws against the "crime of journalism". On the contrary it's the other way around. Journalist are supposed to be protected.

reply to post by Nyiah


Agreed, totally frightening Nyiah.

Great Britian, don't be such an ardent student of my country's decent into the gutter.

So, the authorities stopped him under their Terrorism Act? If they are trying to connect him to Snowden via Poitras, that doesn't lead to a terrorist. Snowden has 3 felony complaints issued against him; 2 under the Espionage Act, and none of the 3 has anything to do with terrorism.
The depths those in power will will stoop to in order to keep their grasp is disgusting.

So they had 9hrs to completely pull apart his laptop, phone, email accounts etc..

I'd say this was an intelligence gathering exercise more than intimidation.

Why are zey pussyfooting around in ze UK? In ze Reich vee vood haff shot him at ze aihport.

Zweite.

I'm really curious to see what the government apologists will come up with to excuse this one away. "If he didn't want to be detained he shouldn't have been involved with a reporter!"

Although I am sure we will never get confirmation either way (at least confirmation we can trust), I have no doubt that this individual was detained because someone in the U.S government gave it the green light. This seems to confirm my suspicion that Snowden has an ace up his sleeve that he has given out to ensure his own safety. Pure speculation on my part, but what if intimidation wasn't the goal here, and these thugs were looking for that ace?

They wanted to check his breasts for explosives....

It takes alot longer with men don't ya know....

Edit
Wait....why was he carrying a Game Console?