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

David Miranda: 'They said I would be put in jail if I didn't co-operate'

Miranda said the authorities in the UK had pandered to the US in trying to intimidate him and force him to reveal the passwords to his computer and mobile phone.

"They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn't co-operate," said Miranda. "They treated me like I was a criminal or someone about to attack the UK … It was exhausting and frustrating, but I knew I wasn't doing anything wrong."

"I was in a different country with different laws, in a room with seven agents coming and going who kept asking me questions. I thought anything could happen. I thought I might be detained for a very long time," he said.

www.theguardian.com...

The problem I have with the NSA is the same problem I have with Islam and other autocratic regimes. It is a system that gives itself too easily to abuse.

reply to post by xavi1000


From that article -

The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history occurred – with two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents. "We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the remains of a MacBook Pro.
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect on Greenwald's work.

By this rate all the guardians journalists are going to have to move abroad in order to continue down the route they are on.

Nice to know that it will have no effect on Greenwald's work.

link

reply to post by Thorneblood


Yet again that just shows how much the British government panders to the United States,

It's as if they were looking for a nice little pat on the head from Obama.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha


I was more impressed by what Anonymous did then hearing a confirmation that the US knew it was coming as i believe most of us saw that story coming a mile off.

Did anyone get a copy of the information Anonymous posted?

reply to post by Thorneblood


here ya go try that link

It's kinda funny

Cool, thanks. The link i tried just went to a dead page. Surprised?

Anyway, that page sent me here, thought i'd share
Sou rce

Buried in a Reuters report about the UK government's ridiculous decision to force the Guardian to destroy some hard drives with Snowden-related materials, is the fact that the reporter got a US official to admit that the detention of Glenn Greenwald's partner, David Miranda, was all about "sending a message" to anyone who had the Snowden documents:
One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks.

reply to post by Thorneblood


I think the entire escapade has backfired on them.

Greenwald appears more determined than ever, I don't think their 'send a message' had the desired effect

At least it's not being completely swept under the rug....
Times

In an e-mail Monday to The Associated Press, Mr. Greenwald said that he needed material from Ms. Poitras for articles he was working on related to the N.S.A., and that he had things she needed. “David, since he was in Berlin, helped with that exchange,” Mr. Greenwald wrote.

Keith Vaz, an opposition Labour Party legislator who is chairman of Parliament’s Home Affairs select committee, said he had written to the head of the Metropolitan Police Service, which has jurisdiction in the matter, to ask for clarification of what he called an extraordinary case.

“What needs to happen pretty rapidly is, we need to establish the full facts,” he told the BBC. “Now you have a complaint from Mr. Greenwald and the Brazilian government — they indeed have said they are concerned at the use of terrorism legislation for something that does not appear to relate to terrorism. So it needs to be clarified, and clarified quickly.”

I am an admirer of Greenwald's body of work and, while I don't always agree with his findings, I am thankful for his investigative journalism.

That being said, I have a major ethical concern with both Greenwald and the editors of the Guardian because of the choices they made in covering the ordeal of David Miranda who is Greenwald's domestic partner and who was detained for nine hours at Heathrow on Sunday.

Greenwald should have made the choice to recuse himself from covering/investigating/reporting Miranda's ordeal.
The Guardian's editors should have determined that in the best interest of journalism another Guardian journalist should investigate Miranda's ordeal and, while Greenwald could be quoted in coverage; he should not have any larger role given the circumstances.

This raises a huge red flag to me.

reply to post by NickDC202


I dont see why?

The government were the ones who decided to make it personal by going after his partner. He had a right to pen a response to that, I know I would.

Who better to write the story than one of the targets? which Greenwald was.

reply to post by Lady_Tuatha

reply to post by Thorneblood


Hide and watch. They WILL relate it to terrorism (cyber terrorism) soon enough. Cybersecurity is on the UN's agenda and there is lots of fine print and tweaking of language in the works.

reply to post by queenofswords


It is interesting to note that the US can declare Martial Law if there is an act of Cyber Terrorism....

Originally posted by Thorneblood
reply to post by queenofswords

 

It is interesting to note that the US can declare Martial Law if there is an act of Cyber Terrorism....

**sigh**...Do you ever feel like We The People are being played like a fiddle?

No, not really.

Yes they can declare martial law for an act of cyber terrorism, but if you have seen Live Free or Die Hard () then you can see why....

A fire sale would destroy our country....

hehe

Anyway, i don't really fear Martial Law that much, at least not in America. I believe it would be nearly impossible to impose it and maintain it for an extended period of time.

The logistics of it simply don't add up for me.

Originally posted by Lady_Tuatha
reply to post by NickDC202

 

I dont see why?

The government were the ones who decided to make it personal by going after his partner. He had a right to pen a response to that, I know I would.

Who better to write the story than one of the targets? which Greenwald was.

Professional journalists ethically must keep the interest of their readers — instead of their own self-interests — paramount. The journalist’s code of ethics requires that a reporter should “avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.”

When this story broke, it was Greenwald's voice and words that framed the incident, an incident in which the primary subject was the love of his life. Instead of David Miranda sharing his story directly with an unbiased reporter, the public was presented with Greenwald's take on the incident which largely lacked Miranda's voice. Ethically, it is critical to investigate the incident and gain independent insight from both parties involved; failing to do so often leads to the perception that or the actuality that a journalist so intimate with the subject might embellish the facts.

I truly value Greenwald's work, but in this case both he and the Guardian failed to follow ethical guidelines in reporting this incident. I hope that this isn't part of a strategy by the powers that be to debunk and discredit Greenwald because if one considers that possibility they will quickly come to the realization that it is a definite possibility.

reply to post by NickDC202


I think this has done Greenwald the world of good in the public's eyes, far from discredit him ( well in my eyes ), many more people now will be following what he reports on due to this happening and because of his attitude afterwards. I was never an avid fan of his up until now

CNN

Lawyers acting for David Miranda, the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, said they will bring his case to the High Court in London on Thursday after he was detained at Heathrow Airport.
Greenwald, who works for The Guardian newspaper, has been at the forefront of high-profile reports exposing secrets in U.S. intelligence programs, based on leaks from former U.S. National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden.

"What they're essentially seeking right now is a declaration from the British court that what the British authorities did is illegal, because the only thing they're allowed to detain and question people over is investigations relating to terrorism, and they had nothing to do with terrorism, they went well beyond the scope of the law," Greenwald told CNN's AC360 on Tuesday.

Should be interesting to see how this all turns out for them.

Guardian

Police use of data seized from the partner of the Guardian journalist who exposed mass digital surveillance by US and UK spy agencies was partially and temporarily curtailed on Thursday by the high court.

Lord Justice Beaston and Judge Kenneth Parker issued an injunction blocking the government from using or sharing material seized from David Miranda at Heathrow on Sunday in a criminal investigation – half an hour after a Metropolitan police lawyer announced the force had launched such an investigation.

Jonathan Laidlaw QC, appearing for the Met, said the data Miranda was taking to Brazil for his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, contained "highly sensitive material the disclosure of which would be gravely injurious to public safety". There were tens of thousands of pages of digital material, he said.

Tens of thousands of pages of digital material?
Holy hell what exactly was on these drives that could amount to so much information?

So they are claiming he might be a terrorist?
Those are some pretty serious accusations....
And the material they confiscated could put lives at risk?

The Met welcomed the decision "which allows our examination of the material to continue in order to protect life and national security, and for the purposes of the schedule 7 examination [ie whether Miranda is a terrorist].

"Initial examination of the material seized has identified highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk. As a result the Counter Terrorism Command (SO15) has today begun a criminal investigation. This investigation is at an early stage and we are not prepared to discuss it in any further detail at this stage."

Steven Kovats QC, counsel for Theresa May, said the home secretary "does not accept that we are concerned here with journalistic material" and believed Miranda "is not a journalist, and stolen documents can't be held in confidence and don't qualify as journalistic materials".

A hearing on how the courts will allow the authorities to use the material seized from Miranda in the longer term has been scheduled for next Friday. A full hearing into the legality of the UK authorities' use of the counter-terror laws against Miranda is not likely to happen until October and May might apply for that hearing to be held in secret, the court heard.

The injunction permits the authorities to "inspect, copy, disclose, transfer, distribute" the data in the protection of national security or for investigating whether Miranda himself "is a person who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

Think we will ever see this information?