Reaction to the detention of David Miranda at Heathrow airport – as it happened
- Gerar link
- Outros aplicativos
google-com-uk/
FEDERAL SUPREME COURT
ROBERTO-MARINE FOUNDATION
City Hall Victory
Government of the State of Espirito Santo
Jose Roberto Marinho
GLORIOUS VIEW MAGAZINE -
GLOBE NETWORK TELEVISION
zero hour
RBS Group (South Brazil Network Television)
RBS
Mail the People (rs)
The sun
People Gazette
MUNICIPALITY OF RIO DE JANEIRO
Government of the state of sao paulo
City Hall of St. Paul
Government of the state of Rio de Janeiro
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live
www.hollywoodnews.com
www.nytimes.com
www.washingtonpost.com
www.foxnews.com
BBC News -
UK Uol.com Msn.com
gazetaonline.globo.com
Globo> RPC TV
Rio de Janeiro
Government of the state of Rio de Janeiro
Government of the state of holy spirit
Government of the state of Minas Gerais
City Hall of Belo Horizonte
City Hall of rio de janeiro
Reaction to the detention of David Miranda at Heathrow airport – as it happened
• White House: US given 'heads up' before Miranda detained
• Miranda accuses Britain of a 'total abuse of power'
• Watchdog urges Home Office and police to explain detention
• Scotland Yard says detention 'legally and procedurally sound'
• Miranda accuses Britain of a 'total abuse of power'
• Watchdog urges Home Office and police to explain detention
• Scotland Yard says detention 'legally and procedurally sound'
Email
Summary
Before we wrap the blog up now, here is a summary of key events today:
• Britain has been facing intense pressure to give a detailed explanation of the decision to detain the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald after the White House confirmed that it was given a "heads-up" before David Miranda was taken into custody for nine hours at Heathrow.
• In his first interview since returning to his home in Brazil on Monday, Miranda accused Britain of a "total abuse of power" for interrogating him at the airport outside London under the Terrorism Act.
He 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.
He 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.
• Miranda's detention has been widely condemned as unlawful, with Newspaper editors, human rights lawyers and civil liberties campaigners describing it as a gross abuse of the Terrorism Act 2000, which despite its scope was never meant to be used as a licence for extracting information.
Alan Rusbrudger, editor of the Guardian, has said that a perception that the US and UK governments were intent on stemming a recent tide of leaks and on pursuing the leaks' whistleblower with a vengeance is right.
Alan Rusbrudger, editor of the Guardian, has said that a perception that the US and UK governments were intent on stemming a recent tide of leaks and on pursuing the leaks' whistleblower with a vengeance is right.
• Scotland Yard has insisted that Miranda's detention was "legally and procedurally sound" and denied that he was not given access to a lawyer.
"The procedure was reviewed throughout to ensure the examination was both necessary and proportionate," the police said in a statement.
"The procedure was reviewed throughout to ensure the examination was both necessary and proportionate," the police said in a statement.
• Britain's anti-terrorist legislation watchdog has called on the Home Office and Metropolitan police to explain why anti-terror laws were used to detain Miranda for nine hours at Heathrow airport.
Amid mounting concern across the political spectrum over the treatment of David Miranda, David Anderson QC said the detention of Greenwald's partner on Sunday appeared to be "unusual".
Amid mounting concern across the political spectrum over the treatment of David Miranda, David Anderson QC said the detention of Greenwald's partner on Sunday appeared to be "unusual".
Updated
Some reaction on Twitter to that piece from Alan Rusbridger, who told ofGCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement to make sure there was nothing in them that could be of interest to foreign spies:
GCHQ spooks smashing up hard drives in london when the journo is in Brazil. Did they not get the memo about the internet?— Nick Pickles (@nickpickles) August 19, 2013
British spies thought smashing up the Guardian’s MacBooks would end NSA stories. Hope al-Qaeda don’t use floppy disks http://t.co/SiAZcvaKxV— Jon Swaine (@jonswaine) August 19, 2013
.@arusbridger's "two GCHQ security experts overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement" sure makes UK look silly...— Empty Circle (@EmptyCircle) August 19, 2013
Since the destruction of a vessel means nothing when data can be in many places. What was Whitehall's point? Intimidation?— Anthony De Rosa (@AntDeRosa) August 19, 2013
Really interesting to see how British spies seek to censor journalists. Wonder in how many cases they've done it successfully— Judith Evans (@JudithREvans) August 19, 2013
Updated
Rusbridger on the threat to journalism
Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, has penned a piece in which he warns that events at Heathrow and elsewhere show that the threat to journalism is real and growing.
He writes:
The detention of Miranda has rightly caused international dismay because it feeds into a perception that the US and UK governments – while claiming to welcome the debate around state surveillance started by Snowden – are also intent on stemming the tide of leaks and on pursuing the whistleblower with a vengeance. That perception is right.
He goes on to provide some details of a toughening up in the mood emanating from British government officials who have been demanding the return or destruction of material which the Guardian has been working on to inform the public about the activities of the intelligence agencies, government and corporations.
The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun. Now we want the stuff back."There followed further meetings with shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden material back or destroy it.
Eventually, events led to what he describes as "one of the more bizarre moments in the Guardian's long history"
- 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.
You can read the piece in full here.
Updated
So why was David Miranda detained? Here's his own view on why, as told earlier to the Guardian in his first interview since returning home to Brazil:
It is clear why those took me. It's because I'm Glenn's partner. Because I went to Berlin.Because Laura* lives there. So they think I have a big connection.But I don't have a role. I don't look at documents. I don't even know if it was documents that I was carrying.It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on.
Laura Poitras... the US film-maker who has also beeworking with Greenwald and the Guardian on a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency.
New police statement
Scotland Yard has released a new statement on Miranda's detention. The most note-worthy part seems to be where the police insist that the use of the Terrorism Act to detain him was "legally and procedurally sound".
It says:
The examination of a 28-year-old man under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 at Heathrow Airport on Sunday 18 August was subject to a detailed decision making process.The procedure was reviewed throughout to ensure the examination was both necessary and proportionate.Our assessment is that the use of the power in this case was legally and procedurally sound.Contrary to some reports the man was offered legal representation while under examination and a solicitor attended. No complaint has been received by the MPS [Metropolitan Police Service] at this time.
There is more, including some lines on safeguards which the police say ensure that the powers under Schedule 7 are used "appropriately and proportionately". It adds:
The MPS also fully supports proposed changes to the legislation which are now being considered by Parliament following the Home Office consultation on the use and scope of the power.
You can read the statement in full here on the website of the Metropolitan Police.
Updated
Here is some footage of David Miranda after he arrived back at the airport in Rio today.
It's got some comments from him and Glenn Greenwald as well as separate footage of Brazil's foreign minister, Antonia Patriota, speaking to reporters.
Referring to Miranda's detention, Patriota said
We consider it unjustified, this nine-hour detainment, under the basis of a law that is applied to suspects with a possible involvement in terrorism.
Some more detail from that interview with David Miranda about what happened to him at Heathrow.
He said that his carry-on bags were searched and police confiscated a computer, two pen drives, an external hard drive and several other electronic items.
These included a games console as well as two newly bought watches and phones packaged and boxed in his stowed luggage.
Miranda added:
They got me to tell them the passwords for my computer and mobile phone.They said I was obliged to answer all their questions and used the words 'prison' and 'station' all the time.
Updated
Miranda: I was threatened with jail
In his first interview since returning to his home in Rio de Janeiro early on Monday, David Miranda has accused Britain of a "total abuse of power" for interrogating him for almost nine hours at Heathrow under the Terrorism Act.
You can read a piece here based on that interview with the Guardian's Jonathan Watts.
Miranda said that British authorities had pandered to the US in trying to intimidate him and force him to reveal the passwords to his computer and mobile phone.
He said:
They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn't co-operate.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.
This is Ben Quinn taking over the live blog at this point.
Reporters without borders, the press freedom group, has added its voice to the criticism over the UK government's action.
“The world’s most repressive states often identify journalism with terrorism and now the British authorities have crossed a red line by resorting to this practice,” the organisation said in an article on its website.
“We are very disturbed by this unacceptable violation of the UK’s obligations to respect freedom of information and the confidentiality of journalists’ sources. By acting in this arbitrary way, the British authorities have just emphasized how necessary and legitimate Snowden’s and Greenwald’s revelations were."
A petition launched by 'Four Lions' actor Adeel Akhtar on Change.org, calling for the British government to review how it uses Schedule 7, has garnered over 23,000 signatures in just a few hours.
The petition calls for a review of how authorities use the section of the Terrorism Act 2000 under which David Miranda was detained on Sunday.
"Being detained by authorities can be terrifying for an innocent person. Unfortunately I know how David feels," Akhtar wrote in posting the petition.
Ten years ago, I was returning to New York from London where I was studying when I was detained for several hours on 'suspicion of terrorism' - their reason? I looked 'familiar'. It was a traumatic experience which left me feeling powerless and let down, fearful that when travelling I'll be singled out and have to go through the same thing again.
"Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to detain anyone at the UK’s borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification," Akhtar added. "I think it’s time for the Government to review how it uses Schedule 7. Please join me."
Article 19, the UK-based campaign for free expression, has added its voice to the criticism over David Miranda's detention – something it described as "a serious and alarming incident that must be
fully investigated immediately".
fully investigated immediately".
"It is highly unlikely that the UK authorities had any motivation for this beyond exerting pressure on his partner Glen Greenwald, a journalist reporting on matters of serious public interest,” said Agnes Callamard, Article 19 executive director.
Harassing a journalist is a clear violation of the right to freedom of expression, which is protected by British, European and international law. Extending this harassment to his family is an utterly appalling and cruel abuse of power.
Updated
My colleague Lindsey Bever has been rounding up some of the reaction from media pundits and others to the news that David Miranda was detained under the UK's anti-terrorism law.
Among those, Andrew Sullivan, the Dish.
After detention of @ggreenwald's husband, UK is now a police state when it comes to journalists, just like Russia is:http://t.co/2HEAjpG0tq— Andrew Sullivan (@sullydish) August 19, 2013
In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state. You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed. You have broken the trust that enables any such legislation to survive in a democracy. By so doing, you have attacked British democracy itself. What on earth do you have to say for yourself? And were you, in any way, encouraged by the US administration to do such a thing?
Updated
Summary: US given 'heads up' before Miranda detention
Here's what we know after that White House press briefing:
• The US was given a "heads up" before David Miranda, partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained in London. White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest confirmed on Monday that the UK alerted the US government that they would hold Miranda before he arrived at London's Heathrow airport.
• The White House said it did not give the order for Miranda to be detained, but nevertheless was kept aware of developments. "We had an indication it was likely to occur but it's not something we requested," Earnest said. Pressed on when the US was told Miranda would be held, he added: "It probably wouldn't be a heads up if they had told us about it after the detainment." Earnest said it would be "accurate" to interpret this to mean the US was told Miranda would be detained when his name appeared on the manifest.
• Earnest would not deny that the US had obtained access to Miranda's electronic material. Several items, including laptops, were seized at Heathrow. Asked by a reporter to "rule out that the US has obtained this material", Earnest said: "I'm not in a position to do that right now."
The US State Department is toeing the same line as Earnest, it seems. From Buzzfeed reporter Rosie Gray:
State Dept on David Miranda detention: "We were informed in advance but we did not ask UK authorities to undertake this operation."— Rosie Gray (@RosieGray) August 19, 2013
I've just transcribed Earnest's remarks when he was pressed to define the nature of the 'heads up' the US was given re David Miranda being detained. Asked if the 'heads up' was given before Miranda was stopped, Earnest said:
"It probably wouldn't be a heads up if they had told us about it after the detainment."
A reporter then asked: "So it's fair to say say they told you they were going to do this when they saw that he was on the manifest?"
"I think that is an accurate interpretation of what a heads up is," Earnest said.
CNN White House correspondent Jessica Yellin then quizzed Earnest as to whether the US obtained information from Miranda's electronic equipment seized by the UK government:
"I'm just not in a position to talk to you about the conversations between British law enforcement officials and American law enforcement officials," Earnest said.
Yellin followed up: "But you can't rule out that the US has obtained this material."
"I'm not in a position to do that right now," Earnest said.
WH also won't say whether the US has obtained information from the laptop + other devices the British confiscated from Greenwald's partner.— Jessica Yellin (@JessicaYellin) August 19, 2013
Updated
White House: US was given 'heads up' before Miranda detained
This is more interesting: Earnest admits that the White House was given a "heads up" over Miranda's detention yesterday.
"We had an indication it was likely to occur but it's not something we requested," he says.
Pressed further, he says the US was told Miranda would be detained before he arrived at Heathrow airport in London.
"It probably wouldn't be a heads up if they had told us about it after the detainment," Earnest said.
Earnest refuses to say whether Miranda was on a terror watch-list either in Britain or in the US.
He would not comment on whether the US discouraged the UK from holding Miranda before his detention.
Updated
Earnest is asked again about Miranda's detention. He repeats his earlier assertion that it was a decision taken by the British government, "without involvement, and not at the request, of the United States government".
"In terms of the kind of classified confidential conversations that are ongoing between the US and our allies in Britain, I'm not able to characterise those for you."
Earnest's responses are prompting some scepticism online.
@RobertsDan Is that like their denial they spied on Americans?— James Mackintosh (@jmackin2) August 19, 2013
Josh Earnest, White House deputy press secretary, is asked aboutDavid Miranda being detained at Heathrow.
"What you're referring to" is an action by the British government, he says.
"The United States was not involved in that decision or action. If you have questions about it I would refer you to the British government."
A follow up questioner asks if the US feels that information that is useful in finding could have been revealed.
"I'm not aware of any of the conversations that Mr Miranda may have had with British law enforcement officials while he was detained," Earnest says.
"But that detention was a decision which was made by the British government and is something that if you have questions about you should ask them."
Updated
Good afternoon. A press briefing with White House deputy press secretary Josh Earnest is scheduled to begin any minute. You can watch it live here, or follow text updates on the blog.
Earnest could face questions from reporters as to whether the US had any involvement or knowledge of David Miranda being detained.
Afternoon summary
• MPs have decided to use a parliamentary inquiry into terrorist legislation to force the police to explain why David Miranda, partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained for almost nine hours at Heathrow airport under a controversial anti-terror law. The law (schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act) is only supposed to be used to stop people suspected of being involved in terrorism. (See 4.32pm.) Keith Vaz, the chair of the Commons home affairs committee, used a letter to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan police commissioner, to pose a series of questions about the affair. (See 5.16pm.) He issued this statement.
This is an extraordinary twist to an already complex story. It is right that the Police have these powers but it is important that they are used appropriately.I have today written to the Metropolitan police commissioner asking him to clarify this use of the Terrorism Act and whether it was implemented at the behest of another government. We need to establish the full facts. I am concerned about the message this sends out to all those who transit through the UK. Our legislation needs to be used proportionately.The home affairs select committee will begin an inquiry into terrorism shortly and we will certainly be looking at this issue very closely.
Britain's independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, David Anderson QC, has also said he wants to be told why schedule 7 was used to detain Miranda. And Labour has demanded a full explanation. (See 12.54pm.)
• Anderson has suggested that government plans to restrict the use of schedule 7 do not got far enough. (See 1.54pm.) He has encouraged people to lobby their MPs on this issue. (See 3.44pm.) The pressure group Liberty has also said the Miranda case highlights the importance of its legal challenge to schedule 7 at the European Court of Human Rights. (See 5.08pm.)
• The Society of Editors and the National Union of Journalists have both strongly condemned the treatment of Miranda.Miranda's detention was "a gross misuse of the law and clearly linked to the work of his partner Glenn Greenwald", Michelle Stanistreet, the NUJ general secretary, said.
That's all from me, Andrew Sparrow. My colleague Adam Gabbatt will be taking over for the rest of the evening.
Updated
Joshua Rozenburg has written a helpful guide to schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act. His conclusion?
It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the power was used disproportionately and therefore inappropriately, despite Scotland Yard's protestations to the contrary.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, has now released the text of the letter that he has sent to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, the Metropolitan police commissioner, about the detention of David Miranda. Here it is, in full.
I am writing to you regarding the use of Schedule 7 under the Terrorism Act 2000 to detain David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald at Heathrow Airport on Sunday 18 August 2013 at 8:05 a.m. I understand that this legislation is very important to the work that the police do.The Home Affairs Select Committee is currently conducting an inquiry into terrorism and I would be most grateful if you could provide the following information:1. Who took the decision to detain Mr Miranda under Schedule 7, at what level this decision was sanctioned and when this decision was taken?2. Why this decision was taken, and upon what grounds it was deemed justified?a) Whether any foreign authorities asked us to take this decision?3. Why Mr Miranda was not stopped in Germany and were the German authorities aware of the decision?4. Whether you were aware of this decision prior to the detention and if so, when?5. Whether the Home Office was informed prior to the detention and if so, when6. Whether Ministers, Security Services or any other agencies were involved in the process?7. Why Mr Mirandaa) Had his personal effects confiscated?b) Was detained for the full 9 hours?8. Whether the decision was scrutinised prior to the detention of Mr Miranda, and by whom?9. Whether Mr Miranda was afforded the possibility of legal representation?10. How many people have been detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 in similar circumstances since January 2012 and at what level each of those decisions was sanctioneda) Generally?b) At airports?c) In transit?
Liberty, the human rights pressure group, is already challenging schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act at the European Court of Human Rights. (See 1.05pm.) Here's a news release with more details about the case.
Liberty has long argued that Schedule 7 is overbroad legislation, ripe for misuse and discrimination, and currently has a case pending at the European Court of Human Rights challenging the power. The case involves a British citizen of Asian origin who was detained at Heathrow under Schedule 7 for four and a half hours in November 2010. During his detention, he was questioned about his salary, his voting habits and the trip he had been on, among other matters. Copies were taken of all his paperwork and credit cards and the police kept his mobile phone, which was only returned to him eight days later after having to pay for its return himself. He had never previously been arrested or detained by the police and was travelling entirely lawfully.
Michelle Stanistreet, general secretary of the National Union of Journalists, has described the detention of David Miranda as "a gross misuse of law".
[Miranda's] detention and treatment was a gross misuse of the law and clearly linked to the work of his partner Glenn Greenwald, who revealed the extent of mass surveillance and wholesale interception of internet traffic by the US security services and its collusion with GCQH. It's rather ironic that the police's response, in turn, is to put the partner of a journalist under surveillance and detain him in this way.Miranda had been used as a go-between by Greenwald and film-maker Laura Poitras, in Berlin, who had been working with him on the information supplied by Edward Snowden. This material has now been confiscated. Journalists no longer feel safe exchanging even encrypted messages by email and now it seems they are not safe when they resort to face-to-face meetings. This is not an isolated problem.The treatment meted out to David Miranda is wholly unacceptable and it is time the use, or rather misuse, of terrorism legislation as a way of targeting individuals was properly and independently reviewed.
As Amnesty International has said (see 3.25pm), schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act is only supposed to be used for counter-terrorism purposes.
Here's some evidence to back that up. Here is advice on stop and search produced in 2006 on behalf of the Association of Chief Police Officers (pdf) and here is what it says about schedule 7.
As the power to stop and search under Schedule 7 does not require reasonable suspicion, it is essential that the power is used in a proportionate and justified manner. Officers must take care to stop people only in appropriate circumstances. The power must not be used to stop and question people for any other purpose than those under the Terrorism Act 2000.
And here is the code of practice for officers using the Terrorism Act (pdf), and here is what it says about schedule 7. (The use of bold is mine.)
Although the exercise of Schedule 7 powers is not based on an examining officer having any suspicion against any individual, the powers should not be used arbitrarily. An examining officer’s decision to exercise their Schedule 7 powers at ports must be based on the threat posed by the various terrorist groups active in and outside the United Kingdom. When deciding whether to exercise their Schedule 7 powers, examining officers should base their decisions on a number of considerations, including factors such as;• known and suspected sources of terrorism;• 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 ....Schedule 7 powers are to be used solely for the purpose of ascertaining if the person examined is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The powers must not be used to stop and question persons for any other purpose. An examination must cease and the examinee must be informed that it has ended once it has been ascertained that the person examined does not appear to be or to have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Updated
The Lib Dems have finally put out a line about the detention of David Miranda. This is from a party spokesman.
It is important that the police use these powers [schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act] proportionately and for good reason. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has already asked for more information on this incident and we will wait to hear his conclusions.
Unsurprisingly, it's much the same as the line Sir Menzies Campbell was taking earlier. (See 2.32pm.)
Updated
And here is the infamous schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act.
Here is the conclusion of the chapter dealing with schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act in the annual report that David Anderson, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, published last month (pdf).It's chapter 10, the one dealing with port and border controls.
Port powers akin to those currently contained in TA 2000 Schedule 7 have been on the statute book in one form or another since 1974, without attracting sustained attention from courts or legislators.The spotlight is now however trained firmly upon Schedule 7. A review and public consultation have given rise to a Bill currently making its way through Parliament; and the compatibility of Schedule 7 powers with ECHR rights stands
to be determined for the first time, by courts both in England and in Strasbourg. To the issues already before the courts I would add only those that arise out of the copying and retention of electronic data from mobile phones and computers.The power remains of unquestioned utility; and as I have recorded in previous years, examinations are for the most part exercised with good humour, good judgement and restraint. The decreasing use of Schedule 7 in recent years contrasts markedly with the explosion in the use of section 44 during the second half of the last decade. Senior ports officers are well aware not only of the value of the power, but of the fact that like all valuable things, it needs careful handling.Undeniably, however, its exercise has given rise to resentment, particularly among Muslims who feel themselves singled out for attention. In the circumstances, it is right that the necessity and proportionality of its various features should be closely examined by Parliament and by the courts. It is desirable that the conclusions of Parliament should be sufficiently robust and far-reaching to survive anything that the courts can throw at them.
In his interview on the World at One Anderson said there was "certainly room for more safeguards" in the Act. (See 1.54pm.) But he stressed that this was a matter for parliament.
However, on Twitter he has been encouraging people to lobby their MP on this issue.
Strong views on #Schedule7 and #Miranda? Reform to the power is pending - your MP can influence its coursehttps://t.co/Kgun3UiJy3— David Anderson (@terrorwatchdog) August 19, 2013
Amnesty International has said that David Miranda was "clearly the victim of unwarranted revenge tactics, targeted for no more than who his partner is".
In its press notice, Amnesty also says that police guidance clearly says that schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act should only be used for counter-terrorism purposes (regardless of the loophole that says the police don't have to suspect someone of being a terrorist before they apply it - see1.54pm). Here's an extract from what Amnesty has put out.
Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to detain anyone at the UK’s borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present and there is no automatic provision of a lawyer. It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer questions - regardless of the grounds for that refusal or otherwise fully cooperate with the police.According to the advice published by the Association of Chief Police Officers’, Schedule 7 should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose.A similarly over-broad and vague section of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allowed stop and search without any grounds was held to be unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Section 44 - as it was known - violated Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights which protects privacy.
Updated
And here's an extract from Simon Jenkins' post on the David Miranda detention for First thoughts at Comment is free.
The hysteria of the "war on terror" is now corrupting every area of democratic government. It extends from the arbitrary selection of drone targets to the quasi-torture of suspects, the intrusion on personal data and the harassing of journalists' families. The disregard of statutory oversight – in Britain's case pathetically inadequate – is giving western governments many of the characteristics of the enemies they profess to oppose. How Putin must be rubbing his hands with glee.The innocent have nothing to fear? They do if they embarrass America and happen to visit British soil. The only land of the free today in this matter is Brazil.
Nick Cohen has written a terrific blog for the Spectator about the detention of David Miranda which includes a nice account of his (doomed) attempt to get some answers about the affair from the Scotland Yard press office. Here's an extract.
The detention of David Miranda at Heathrow is a clarifying moment that reveals how far Britain has changed for the worse. Nearly everyone suspects the Met held Miranda on trumped up charges because the police, at the behest of the Americans, wanted to intimidate Miranda’s partner Glenn Greenwald, the conduit of Edward Snowden’s revelations, and find out whether more embarrassing information is on Greenwald’s laptop ...The Terrorism Act of 2000, which the Met used against Miranda, says that terrorism involves ‘serious violence against a person’ or ‘serious damage to property’. The police can also detain the alleged terrorist because he or she ‘endangers a person’s life’, ‘poses a serious risk to the health and safety of the public’ or threatens to interfere with ‘an electronic system’.I wanted to ask the Met: Which of these above offences did your officers suspect that Miranda might have been about to commit? What reasonable grounds did they have for thinking he could endanger lives or property? And, more to the point, which terrorist movement did you believe Miranda was associated with: al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, Continuity IRA, ETA, Shiv Sena, the provisional wing of the Unabomber Appreciation Society?Greenwald may not thank me for saying this but in one respect America is an admirable country. In the US, the police reply to reporters’ questions. They may lie, but at least they reply. In the UK, they say nothing. Chief constables could save precious money and protect front line services by sacking every police press officer in the UK. They are useless. Actually, they are worse than useless: they are sinister. They provide the illusion of accountability while blocking it at every stage.
On BBC News Sir Menzies Campbell, the former Lib Dem leader, was asked if he thought the treatment of David Miranda was unacceptable. He said he was not in a position to know.
I don't think anyone can make that judgment yet ... The circumstances surrounding it may, and I only say may, have been justified. But the person who will be best able to reach that conclusion will be the independent adviser on terrorism. He has the responsibility of determining whether these statutory powers have been properly or improperly exercised. He's a very independent individual, Mr Anderson, and if he thinks there has been something that should not have happened, then I have no doubt that he will be robust in his criticism.
And in the UK the Society of Editors has strongly condemned the treatment of David Miranda. This is from Bob Satchwell, its executive director.
Journalism may be embarrassing and annoying for governments but it is not terrorism. It is difficult to know how in this instance the law was being used to prevent terrorism.On the face of it it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the detention of a journalist's partner is anything other than an attempt to intimidate a journalist and his news organisation that is simply informing the public of what is being done by authorities in their name.It is another example of a dangerous tendency that the initial reaction of authorities is to assume that journalists are bad when in fact they play an important part in any democracy.
In America Trevor Timm, the executive director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, has written a blog strongly condemning the detention of David Miranda. Here's an extract.
The most appalling part of the story is the use of UK’s “terrorism” law as a guise to detain David, who, of course, has nothing to do with terrorism. Just like the Patriot Act and FISA Amendments Act, which have been used by the NSA to create mass domestic surveillance databases of millions of innocent people, the “terrorism” law in the UKdeclares the “power to stop and question may be exercised without suspicion of involvement in terrorism.”The NSA stories published by Greenwald and others have prompted an unprecedented debate in the US about the government’s vast surveillance powers, and major reforms now seem likely to pass Congress. Maybe this incident will spark renewed outrage over Britain “terrorism” law, whichthousands of innocent people have been subject to, and laws permitting suspicion-less border searches in general.Ironically, this incident comes the same day as a long profile in New York Times Magazine of [Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has worked with Glenn Greenwald on the NSA revelations and whom Miranda visited in Berlin before his detention] who has shamefully been the subject of similar harassment at the border by the US for years, solely because she produces journalism that the United States government apparently does not like. It’s unknown whether the US had any involvement in the detention of Miranda but questions should be asked as to what they knew and when.
The World at One also interviewed David Lowe, a former Special Branch counter-terrorism officer who now teaches at Liverpool John Moores University. Lowe said the use of the Terrorism Act against David Miranda was proportionate. Edward Snowden had access to secret documents relating to the NSA and the UK's GCHQ, Lowe argued, but the authorities did not know what material he had.
Here schedule 7 has been used because there's a short window of opportunity for police officers, immigration officers or customs officers to use this to actually stop and check what was in the laptop and in the electronic sources that have been talked about.
When it was put to him that 70,000 people were stopped under schedule 7 last year, but that only 24 people were arrested, Lowe said the "relatively small" number of arrests actually showed that the police were behaving reasonably.
The government is already planning to change the way schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act (see 12.48pm) operates. But on the World at One David Anderson QC, the government's independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, suggested that reform should go even further.
Here are the main points.
• Anderson suggested further "safeguards" needed to be introduced to prevent the Terrorism Act being abused. He identified two possible reforms which he said he hoped MPs would consider when they debated the legislation in the autumn. First, the Act could be changed to stop police detaining people under schedule 7 (as they can now) when they do not suspect someone of being a terrorist.
It seems to me there is a question to be answered about whether it should possible to detain somebody, to keep them for six hours, to download their mobile phone, without the need for any suspicion at all. I hope at least it is something that parliament will look at.
Second, new rules could be introduced controlling how the police can seize data under the Act.
What sort of safeguards do you have? When are those data going to be removed? How long are they going to be retained by the police? ... I think there is certainly room for more safeguards.
• He said other proposed changes to the schedule 7 power were already being introduced as a result of a review that he recommended. Under these proposed changed, the police will be allowed to detain people for up to six hours, instead of up to nine hours, and after one hour anyone detained will have access to a lawyer. "I have not met anyone who has had a word to say against the changes," he said. They would "rein in some of the more extreme aspects of the power", he said. But these changes "don't perhaps go right to the basics", he said.
• He confirmed that he had asked for a briefing on the detention of David Miranda. But he would not comment on this rights and wrongs of this specific case.
• But he said that holding someone for up to nine hours under schedule 7 was highly unusual.
What I can do is look across the whole range of port activity. We see 200m or so port users every year. Of those, [60,000] or 70,000 are examined under this schedule 7 stop and only 40 of those are kept for longer than six hours. You can see what an unusual case this was if it is correct Mr Miranda was held right up to the nine hour limit.
• He said schedule 7 should not be abandoned entirely.
This is a useful power. It does capture terrorists. It does disrupt terrorists. And it is very important that in some form it should continue to exist.
Updated
David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terrorist legislation, is being interviewed on the World at One now.
Q: You've asked for a briefing on this.
Yes, Anderson says. It's an important case.
Q: Does the use of the schedule 7 power in this case seem proportionate?
Anderson says he is not going to comment on this case. But holding anyone for up to nine hours under this power is unusual.
He says he wants MPs to introduce more safeguards to restrict the rights of MPs to take digitial data from people using this power.
And he says he is concerned about the way the police can use the schedule 7 powers without having to suspect someone is a terrorist.
But this is an important power, he says.
I'll post full quotes from his interview soon.
Andrew Sullivan, the American blogger, has written a powerful post about the David Miranda case. When Glenn Greenwald started publishing his NSA revelations in the Guardian, Sullivan was sceptical about claims made by Greenwald and other civil libertarians that the state was abusing his powers. Now he says he has changed his stance.
Here's an extract.
David was detained for nine hours – the maximum time under the law, to the minute. He therefore falls into the 3 percent of interviewees particularly, one assumes, likely to be linked to terrorist organizations. My obvious question is: what could possibly lead the British security services to suspect David of such ties to terror groups?I have seen nothing anywhere that could even connect his spouse to such nefarious contacts. Unless Glenn is some kind of super-al-Qaeda mole, he has none to my knowledge and to suspect him of any is so close to unreasonable it qualifies as absurd. The idea that David may fomenting terrorism is even more ludicrous ...In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed. You have broken the trust that enables any such legislation to survive in a democracy. By so doing, you have attacked British democracy itself. What on earth do you have to say for yourself? And were you, in any way, encouraged by the US administration to do such a thing?
Here's a comment from Shami Chakrabarti, the director of Liberty, on the case.
David Miranda's chilling 9-hour detention was possible due to the breathtakingly broad schedule 7 power, which requires no suspicion and is routinely abused. People are held for long periods, subject to strip searches, saliva swabbing and confiscation of property - all without access to a publicly funded lawyer. Liberty is already challenging this law in the Court of Human Rights but MPs disturbed by this latest scandal should repeal it without delay.
Keith Vaz, the Labour chair of the Commons home affairs committee, told the BBC he had written to Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, commissioner of the Metropolitan police, demanding an explanation for David Miranda's detention.
What we understand from Mr Greenwald, Mr Miranda and the Brazilian government is that this particular gentleman, Mr Miranda, was not involved in any form of terrorist activity, and the question is therefore why was this legislation used? But I think it’s important that we establish the facts first – that’s why I’ve just written to the commissioner of police, Bernard Hogan-Howe, to ask for an account of what happened, because I think the clearer the police are about why these powers were used, the more reassured the public can be.
Vaz also said that there should be clarification as to whether schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act should be used against people not involved in terrorism.
What is required now is clarity and the full facts, because clearly, if this is being used on a routine basis for matters that are totally unconnected with terrorism, this is something that I’m sure parliament will be very interested in ... It certainly is a surprise to me, as someone who was in parliament when this act was passed, that it can be used in circumstances that don’t relate in any way to terrorism.
I've taken the quotes from PoliticsHome.
This is what Downing Street said about the case at the morning briefing for lobby journalists.
The government takes all necessary steps to protect the public from individuals who pose a threat to national security. Schedule 7 forms an essential part of the UK's border security arrangements. But it is for the police to decide when it is necessary and proportionate to use these powers.
Asked if the prime minister was concerned about the case and had sought assurances, the prime minister's spokesman said:
It is an operational matter for the police so we are not going to comment any further.
Here's the comment from Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary.
Any suggestion that terror powers are being misused must be investigated and clarified urgently - the public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse.The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, David Anderson, has already warned of the importance of using schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act appropriately and proportionately.The purpose of schedule 7 is to determine whether or not someone is involved in or associated with terror activity. The Home Office and police need to explain rapidly how they can justify using that purpose under the terrorism legislation to detain David Miranda for nine hours. This has caused considerable consternation and swift answers are needed.The police and security agencies rightly work hard to protect national security and prevent terrorism. But public confidence in security powers depends on them being used proportionately within the law, and also on having independent checks and balances in place to prevent misuse.
The use of terror legislation to detain David Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian journalist who has broken a series of stories about mass internet surveillance by the US National Security Agency and Britain’s GCHQ, for almost nine hours at Heathrow on Sunday, is generating a storm of protest.
The key facts of the case are set out in today’s Guardian splash.
David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am 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 less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours.Miranda was released, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.
You can read the full story here.
This morning we’ve already had reaction from Yvette Cooper, Keith Vaz, Downing Street and Liberty. I’ll post their comments in full shortly. And David Anderson QC, the independent reviewer of terror legislation, will be talking about the case on the World at One. I’ll be covering that live, as well as further reaction coming in.
Today's best video
Greenpeace's Formula One protest
Activists activate remote-controlled 'Save the Arctic' banners at Shell-sponsored Belgium Grand PrixShujaa Graham on capital punishment
Former death row inmate talks about working to empower exonerated death row survivors49 commentsAndrew Collins: the week in TV
A look at Celebrity Masterchef; The Great British Bake Off; Under the Dome; Top Boy and The Americans13 commentsPires spotted at Greek football match
Ex-Arsenal player Robert Pires scores in a Greek friendly after he is spotted in the stands
More on this story
- Former Metropolitan police commissioner says 'facilitating terrorism' by leaking should be made explicitly criminal
NSA files and David Miranda detention
- Judges ask government to provide detailed evidence about why it wants right to trawl data seized using terror laws
Video
- David Miranda's lawyer says her client was treated in a 'most egregious manner' during his nine-hour detention at Heathrow
Comment & analysis
- Theresa May can try to justify the use of schedule 7, but officials knew Miranda was no terrorist and they held him anyway
More coverage
- Alan Rusbridger: As the events in a Heathrow transit lounge – and the Guardian offices – have shown, the threat to journalism is real and growing
Find your MP
font images google
font redaction theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction
Reuters London - El diary -
La time -
La razón (Bolivia)
Municipality of Curitiba-
Municipality of Curitiba
Capital-Paranaense
Chamber of Councillors of Curitiba
State Government of Paraná-
Legislative Assembly of the State of Paraná-
Globo-
State Government of Rio de Janeiro
Municipality of Rio de Janeiro-
FEDERAL government
Brasilia-DF-
Curitiba-Band
Rede Bandeirantes -
Veja magazine -
The Globe - Rpctv Paranaense - NASA
UN - UNITED NATIONS
Roberto Marinho Foundation
Last Minute Spain)
20 Minutes (Barcelona)
20 Minutes (Madrid)
La time -
La razón (Bolivia)
Municipality of Curitiba-
Municipality of Curitiba
Capital-Paranaense
Chamber of Councillors of Curitiba
State Government of Paraná-
Legislative Assembly of the State of Paraná-
Globo-
State Government of Rio de Janeiro
Municipality of Rio de Janeiro-
FEDERAL government
Brasilia-DF-
Curitiba-Band
Rede Bandeirantes -
Veja magazine -
The Globe - Rpctv Paranaense - NASA
UN - UNITED NATIONS
Roberto Marinho Foundation
Last Minute Spain)
20 Minutes (Barcelona)
20 Minutes (Madrid)
- Gerar link
- Outros aplicativos
Comentários
Postar um comentário