For civil libertarians in the United States and England, it is increasingly difficult to distinguish the practices of our own governments and the countries that we routinely denounce as authoritarian. An example of this confusion can be found in the outrageous arrest of the partner of journalist Glenn Greenwald, the Guardian writer who brought the Snowden disclosures to light and a leading voice for civil liberties in the world. David Miranda, who lives with Greenwald, was taken into custody when passing through London’s Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro. He was held for nine hours and had his computer, cell phone and other equipment seized. Such stops can occur at the request of the National Security Agency and other agencies and are carried out under the abusive Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The case could also highlight possible surveillance of journalists in England and the United States.
The law allows police at airports, ports and border areas to stop, search, question and detain individuals for up to nine hours. Miranda, 28, was held obviously because he is the partner of Greenwald. Where 97% of people held under the law are held for less than an hour, they held Miranda for the full nine hours and confiscated his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.
Miranda was reportedly in Berlin to deliver Snowden related documents and to pass other documents from Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker, back to Greenwald. The use of a loved one for such a function is obviously dangerous and most journalists avoid such involvement since the partner would not necessarily be protected as journalists. The documents were stored on encrypted thumb drives. Greenwald says that the police informed him of an intent to arrest Miranda.
Notably, one defense might have been that Miranda was acting in a journalistic activity as a courier for Greenwald but Greenwald is quoted as saying that Miranda is not a journalist. The use of a loved one for such a job would create a dangerous ambiguity. However, it is also clear that the government is targeting a journalist and trying to obtain records of a journalist. Given the history of the Obama Administration in putting reporters under surveillance, there is a reasonable basis to suspect that wiretaps or other forms of surveillance have targeted Greenwald. How did they know to search the partner of Greenwald? I am surprised to see a non-journalist tasked with such a job if these accounts are true. However, these questions still remain as to whether the U.S. government is working with England to target journalistic records.
England has fewer protections for journalists, particularly under its controversial Crown laws. However, even the United States uses enhanced powers at borders and airports. The Supreme Court has adopted different rules governing such stops. The Metropolitan Police released a statement that “[h]olding and properly using intelligence gained from such stops is a key part of fighting crime, pursuing offenders and protecting the public.” The crime in this case would involve disclosures made by someone viewed as a whistleblower to a journalist. Many view Greenwald as protecting the public in performing his journalistic role. Even if Miranda was not viewed as a journalist as Greenwald appears to confirm, he would be viewed as a courier for a known journalist. Such couriers however are usually employees or contractors associated with the media. That difference may have encouraged this action by intelligence officials.
Most people are assuming the English were carrying out the demands of the NSA. Part of the motivation may be the search of the computer records and devices though the length of time has been denounced as harassment. Some members of Congress have called for Greenwald’s arrest. He is responsible for embarrassing a growing number of politicians, including President Obama and leading Democrats, who continue to be caught in false or misleading statements to the public. Unable to convince the public to simply embrace warrantless surveillance and demonize Snowden, the government appears to have adopted a scorched earth policy.
To add to the abuse, Miranda was denied a lawyer as authorities rifled through his computer files and belongings. Greenwald got the message: “[It] 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.” It certainly does, in my view, constitute an attack on the free press and raises the image of virtual hostage taking by the government.
The only thing missing is a few Guy Fawkes masks, “Finger” police, and the smiling face of Minister Peter Creedy to make the scene complete. “Schedule 7” even sounds like something that only Alan Moore could come up with.
What is most striking about Schedule 7 is how it is virtually without any standard or check on authority:
Interpretation
1(1)In this Schedule “examining officer” means any of the following—
(a)a constable,
(b)an immigration officer, and
(c)a customs officer who is designated for the purpose of this Schedule by the Secretary of State and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise.
(2)In this Schedule—
“the border area” has the meaning given by paragraph 4,
“captain” means master of a ship or commander of an aircraft,
“port” includes an airport and a hoverport,
“ship” includes a hovercraft, and
“vehicle” includes a train.
(3)A place shall be treated as a port for the purposes of this Schedule in relation to a person if an examining officer believes that the person—
(a)has gone there for the purpose of embarking on a ship or aircraft, or
(b)has arrived there on disembarking from a ship or aircraft.Power to stop, question and detain
2(1)An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).
(2)This paragraph applies to a person if—
(a)he is at a port or in the border area, and
(b)the examining officer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland [or his travelling by air within Great Britain or within Northern Ireland].
(3)This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived at any place in Great Britain or Northern Ireland (whether from within or outside Great Britain or Northern Ireland).
(4)An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).
My favorite part is the last line: “An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).”
The actions taken against Miranda were intended to send a message to Greenwald and other journalists that their families will not be protected from repercussions in such controversies. Indeed, the crude tactics conveyed a menacing message that the government is not concerned with public outcry or any notion of checks on its actions. You will note that no one in Congress has demanded to know if American officials were involved in this abusive action. Scotland Yard refused to answer any questions beyond confirmed that Miranda was held in custody. The message to citizens seems clear: Challenge the government at your own peril . . . and that of your loved ones.
Source: Guardian
” Maybe, I planted a seed …” (SwM)
That’s exactly what you did … it’s the old “word of mouth” adage which often works better than full blown advertising.
I don’t want people to agree with me simply because I said so. I want them to think about it and come to their own conclusions.
The seed you planted is the beginning of that process.
It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. We can only hope any new revelations made by Greenwald can serve as a catalyst. This is getting Kafkaesque.
By the way, as I typed my response here the #1 item on the cnn web site was how terrified Prince William was that he had to put his car seat in the car correctly. He was worried it might not hold.
So if that is the #1 item when we have trillions of $ stolen by our banks, when the President declares he can kill whomever he wants, when we drop drones on civilians all over the world, We are indeed in a sad state of affairs.
It appears the U.S. and U.K. governments have been hanging too long with drug cartel lords.
“David was unable to call me because his phone and laptop are now with UK authorities. So I don’t yet know what they told him. But the Guardian’s lawyer was able to speak with him immediately upon his release, and told me that, while a bit distressed from the ordeal, he was in very good spirits and quite defiant, and he asked the lawyer to convey that defiance to me. I already share it, as I’m certain US and UK authorities will soon see.” (Glen Greenwald)
Elaine/Smom,
I’ve had people actually tell me, “I don’t want to think about it.” Not that they didn’t know about it. Not that they weren’t concerned about it. They didn’t want to think about it. Classic denial.
Glenn Greenwald: detaining my partner was a failed attempt at intimidation
The detention of my partner, David Miranda, by UK authorities will have the opposite effect of the one intended
By Glenn Greenwald
The Guardian, Sunday 18 August 2013
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsa
Excerpt:
At 6:30 am this morning my time – 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US – I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a “security official at Heathrow airport.” He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been “detained” at the London airport “under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000.”
David had spent the last week in Berlin, where he stayed with Laura Poitras, the US filmmaker who has worked with me extensively on the NSA stories. A Brazilian citizen, he was returning to our home in Rio de Janeiro this morning on British Airways, flying first to London and then on to Rio. When he arrived in London this morning, he was detained.
At the time the “security official” called me, David had been detained for 3 hours. The security official told me that they had the right to detain him for up to 9 hours in order to question him, at which point they could either arrest and charge him or ask a court to extend the question time. The official – who refused to give his name but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 – said David was not allowed to have a lawyer present, nor would they allow me to talk to him.
I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done. The Guardian has the full story here.
Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian’s lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David. We spent most of that time contemplating the charges he would likely face once the 9-hour period elapsed.
According to a document published by the UK government about Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, “fewer than 3 people in every 10,000 are examined as they pass through UK borders” (David was not entering the UK but only transiting through to Rio). Moreover, “most examinations, over 97%, last under an hour.” An appendix to that document states that only .06% of all people detained are kept for more than 6 hours.
The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used “to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.”
But they obviously had zero suspicion that David was associated with a terrorist organization or involved in any terrorist plot. Instead, they spent their time interrogating him about the NSA reporting which Laura Poitras, the Guardian and I are doing, as well the content of the electronic products he was carrying. They completely abused their own terrorism law for reasons having nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism: a potent reminder of how often governments lie when they claim that they need powers to stop “the terrorists”, and how dangerous it is to vest unchecked power with political officials in its name.
Worse, they kept David detained right up until the last minute: for the full 9 hours, something they very rarely do. Only at the last minute did they finally release him. We spent all day – as every hour passed – worried that he would be arrested and charged under a terrorism statute. This was obviously designed to send a message of intimidation to those of us working journalistically on reporting on the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ.
As I mentioned in a previous post, you can never tell what simple event will trigger the mass of people to take to the streets. So far with each of these revelations we get silence from our news media and when you talk to friends about what is happening they just say that they didn’t do anything wrong so there is nothing to fear.
One of these days there will be a confrontation at an NSA checkpoint at an airport, somebody will be found guilty of a crime when bankers go free, a small protest march will have over reaction by the police and it will turn into a riot. Only then will the people wake up, but I hope that one day they will.
When I go through airport security I do not go through their machines, I demand a personal pat down in public. If need be I will strip naked in front of all to see. Unless more of us are willing to do this the police will continue to cow you and prod you along.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Elaine, You are correct. I made a comment to two well informed friends last week and was quite surprised at their answers. Maybe, I planted a seed but, then again, maybe not.
This kind of thing is exactly why I do not have a smart phone–just a flip phone with no texting and no voicemail. Furthermore, I would never travel abroad with a computer. There are computers everywhere in case you need one. One other thing I practice regularly, I never assume anything about portable media, and sure as hell would not assume I could get through an airport or customs checkpoint with it. Email sensitive files from one of your email addresses to another or to the Cloud. Encrypted of course.
General Alexander, commander of NSA, goes into a bar.
The bartender begins to tell him a joke: “Have you heard the one about …”
“Yes,” the general interrupts.
What raff said.
Right down to the sleepless night.
To say that the tactic was crude is an exercise in understatement.
Jill,
I’m surprised at the number of people that I’ve spoken to who have no problem with our government spying on its citizens. They feel they’re doing nothing wrong–so why worry. They never stop to think how the government might abuse its power.
Obviously this stop was justified due to “The War on Terrorism”. Doesn’t anyone realize the terror the workers of our intelligence agency’s must be going through by having their illegal operations brought to light. Why then people might think badly about them and might even see them as criminals.
What would they tell their friends, their neighbors and their families who heretofore have seen them in a heroic light. Most of us feel terror in being embarrassed or humiliated. These agencies must fight the “War on Their Being Terrorized” by truth.
Reblogged this on Reality Check and commented:
Apparently they are after them. Whomever they and them are…..
Oh goodie, stick a pin in the guy that has documents that will bring more public disdairn upon you.
Not a very smart move there London town.
Reblogged this on Brittius.com.
When Bush started rounding people up after 9/11, this mainly effected Muslims. I live near the Canadian boarder. People whose crime was being a Muslim were stopped at the border, zip cuffed, separated from family members, had their property confiscated and got interrogated up to 4-5 hours. They were often turned back from entering either Canada or the US. When you tried to explain this to people they often just looked at you like you were making things up.
Time progressed. Bushcheney kept abrogating more and more powers. By 05, people in our nation knew a little more about what was going on, how we were being lied to, what was happening to the Muslim community here and abroad. People were starting to register dissent. By 07, people seemed much more informed and to pretty much reject, even on the right, the illegalities of GWB.
Jump to 08. Obama is elected and takes office in 09. People who had worked with me on the illegal detention (sometimes resulting in torture) of Muslims, people who thought the executive was out of control–dead silence. No, actually, wild cheering. When Koh explained Obama’s right to kill anyone, anywhere by drone, it was the highly educated, most elite members of our society teaching and going to school at U. of Michigan who gave the man a standing ovation. In a room and overflow room, exactly 5 of us did not stand and deliver. I kept wondering what the hell was wrong with the people who cheered for a man who just said the president had the right to kill people on his own say so.
OWS brought even more understanding of what this govt. will do to its own people. I watched with alarm as one revelation after another was met with denial or anger. I have seen snipers twice in my life, once at OWS and at the second at a Bradley Manning protest. Neither of those actions have anything remotely to do with terrorism and there was no violent action taken by any participant.
Up until now USGinc. has done what it wanted to whom it wanted. What happened to Miranda is only an aberration in that he had lawyers and Brazilian officials who were able to come to his aid. The corpses of those killed by USGinc and friends litter this planet. They have in part gotten away with this because our population has remained silent. I am hoping people will stop being silent and start moving as one voice to condemn this lawlessness. There is a powerful lesson here to be taken. Don’t back down and make certain to speak up on behalf of others. What effects one effects all.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0 ” Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.
A spokesman for the British Foreign Ministry said the episode was a “police matter” and would provide no further comment. Civil rights groups in Britain have criticized Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, accusing the authorities of using the provision to arbitrarily stop and detain travelers, particularly Muslims. The British Home Office has said it is reviewing the provision in an effort to address the concerns.
A lawyer for The Guardian in London was working on trying to understand what had happened, as were foreign-affairs officials for Brazil both in that country and in London, Mr. Greenwald said. He said that he received a call from the Brazilian foreign minister about 40 minutes after alerting the Brazilian government, and that the Brazilian authorities were outraged. “
I saw this article late last night and it gave me nightmares. This is straight out of a spy novel. I would think V would know how to handle this outrageous conduct by Scotland Yard. A very sad day indeed. The good news is that they did it to the wrong Journalist. And I capitalized Journalist because Greenwald is one of the very few real journalists.
We are seeing our government employing desperate measures in an attempt to silence the truth tellers.