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
Enclosing the Commoners
A hundred miles wide
A Constitution-free zone
The “Homeland” border
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller”
Big Br’er Be Watchin’
He says he’d like to tell us
About his endless “war”
But then he’d have to kill us
For knowing just how far
He’s gone to keep us fighting
That baby made of tar
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller,” Copyright 2013
Majority Report
Welcome to The Gap
Scanning your retina now
Yakamoto-san
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller”
Let me rephrase that 1984 reference in Haiku:
Welcome to Airstrip One
Here there is no law
We have always been at war
Oceania
Michael Murry, “The Misfortune Teller”
“In Oceania there is no law.” — 1984
This especially holds true in Airstrip One.
I suspect this affair may have been a clever trap by GG to ensnare the unwitting Brits. Decryption may yield a frothy quote… And nothing else. This is a bit like “Spy versus Spy” as imagined by Orwell and Kafka.
“…it is a criminal offense to refuse to cooperate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence.” – from the following link
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow
“Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers. Those stopped have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offense to refuse to cooperate with questioning under schedule 7, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence.”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction
“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.”
I think at the very least this would give passengers a good reason to avoid landing within British territory if they are in transit elsewhere.
Maybe those newspapers can make an impression by convincing air passengers to avoid UK if they are concerned about their liberties. The airlines would put much pressure on the government since there are hub airports there.
I wonder what would happen to a person if detained they just said I have nothing to say and clammed up.
Glenn Greenwald ‘Not At All Worried’ About Britain Getting Info From His Partner’s Seized Electronics
http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2013/08/19/glenn-greenwald-not-at-all-worried-about-britain-getting-info-from-his-partners-seized-electronics/
“Anyone who has had the displeasure of making a connection at London’s Heathrow airport could tell you a tale of woe. But David Miranda, the domestic partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, has a story to top all others.
Miranda was essentially an ‘information mule.’ According to the New York Times, he was returning to Brazil from Berlin on a Guardian-paid flight, carrying documents from Laura Poitras, the documentary filmmaker who along with Greenwald is at the heart of the Snowden leaks. Miranda was detained at the airport for 8 hours and 55 minutes, under an anti-terrorism law that allows police to question someone without a lawyer for up to 9 hours. (Ironic given the famous defendant with the same last name who gave us all the right to an attorney while being questioned by police in the U.S.) After he was released, he was able to continue onto Brazil but with considerably lighter baggage; the police seized all of the electronic media Miranda was carrying — “his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles” according to the Guardian — a reminder of how limited our privacy rights are when we are crossing borders.
British law enforcement has been close-lipped about the reason for the detention. Apparently, carrying classified documents counts as terrorism now? Greenwald interpreted it as an attempt by government powers to intimidate him over his extensive reporting about the lengths intelligence agencies around the world are going to collect information. Greenwald says via email that the officers “asked [Miranda] many questions about me from the start.” Andrew Sullivan took this lesson from the detention:
So any journalist passing through London’s Heathrow has now been warned: do not take any documents with you. Britain is now a police state when it comes to journalists, just like Russia is.
A better lesson might be that any journalist — or person carrying sensitive information on digital devices — should make sure their documents are locked down with encryption, so that someone with access to those devices doesn’t also have access to the information inside them.
“We both now typically and automatically encrypt all documents and work we carry – not just for the NSA stories,” says Greenwald via email. “So everything he had – for his personal use and everything else – was heavily encrypted, and I’m not worried at all that they can break that.”
Greenwald says Miranda got a document itemizing what was taken from him and was told the items are typically returned within seven days.
David Miranda: Partner Of Glenn Greenwald Detained, Anonymous Fires Back By Hacking UK Website In #OpLastResort
By Jill Heller
on August 19 2013
http://www.ibtimes.com/david-miranda-partner-glenn-greenwald-detained-anonymous-fires-back-hacking-uk-website-oplastresort
Excerpt:
The hacktivist collective Anonymous launched a cyber attack against an official UK government website late on Sunday, in response to the almost nine-hour detention of David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, at London’s Heathrow airport this weekend. Greenwald, who pens the “On Security and Liberty” column for the Guardian and famously broke the Edward Snowden story, publicized the incident in his column, calling it “a failed attempt at intimidation.”
Hours after the search, Anonymous hijacked the website of the Mole Valley District Council, posting a statement that sarcastically defended the search and releasing the contact information of immediate relatives of U.S. government and military employees who they reasoned might be terrorists.
Actually, Mike, I think we’re relatively safe for two reasons. One is that while we are consistently ranked with the top ten read legal blogs on the Web, we still don’t command an audience of the sheer volume writing for something like The Guardian commands. They are both highly trafficked and highly respected. Second is that to go after us, they’d have to go after JT as well. His standing as a well known and well respected Constitutional scholar with connections of his own within the political machine in itself makes him somewhat more problematic as a target than a journalist even like a Greenwald working for The Guardian. The blowback would probably make targeting him (and indirectly or directly us) probably not be worth that payout. That being said random happens and, as Mark noted, fearful people do stupid things.
I agree with oldnurse. Those two know full well what the governments are capable of and at this point, what they are willing to do to forward their point.
Gene H.
1, August 19, 2013 at 11:10 am
Geez, Blouise!
I think I may have to switch to the coffee IV this morning.
Still, the “unprovoked observation” about tactics from the government’s standpoint is I think valid.
==================================================
That’s okay … sometimes the 3 of us get so cryptic even we miss the point the other is making.
Certainly the unprovoked observation is valid. I believe governments (U.S., U.K., Israel, France, etc) are sweating bullets over the documentary Poitras is in the process of editing.
Revisiting the start of this:
Edward Snowden: I don’t wanna live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity, or love, or friendship is recorded, and that’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under.
Excerpt of interview:
Glenn Greenwald: Was there a specific point in time that you can point to where you crossed the line from contemplation to decision making and commitment to do this?
Edward Snowden: I grew up with the understanding that the world I lived in was one where people enjoyed a sort of freedom to communicate with each other in privacy without it being monitored, without it being measured, or analyzed or sort of judged by these shadowy figures or systems anytime they mention anything that travels across public lines.
Glenn Greenwald: But what is it about that set of developments that makes them sufficiently menacing or threatening to you that you’re willing to risk what you’ve risked in order to fight them?
Edward Snowden: I don’t wanna live in a world where everything that I say, everything I do, everyone I talk to, every expression of creativity, or love, or friendship is recorded, and that’s not something I’m willing to support, it’s not something I’m willing to build, and it’s not something I’m willing to live under.
So, I think anyone who opposes that sort of world has an obligation to act in a way they can.
Now I’ve watched and waited and tried to do my job in the most policy-driven way I could, which is to wait and allow other people, wait and allow our leadership, our figures to sort of correct the excesses of government when we go too far.
But as I watched I’ve seen that’s not occurring in fact we’re compounding he excesses of prior governments and making it worse and more invasive. And no one is really standing to stop it.
(http://mashable.com/2013/07/08/edward-snowden-interview-part-2/ )
Air Travel has become a Civil Rights Free Zone.
Civil Rights lawyers will start Setting up offices right in the Airport itself.
Then the government will be calling the Lawyers “terrorists”.
SwM,
If you haven’t already done so, read the Maass articles in NYTimes magazine.
“I’m not doing anything wrong” makes the incorrect assumption that you determine what is “wrong”. Once you have moved from the rule of law to the rule by law (by fiat), there is no measure to determine “wrong” except the say so of people who have more money and power than you do.
I will further add that if you want to live in a nation without the rule of law then you are giving over others to murder, torture, suppression and imprisonment. If you are all good with that, by all means, support lawlessness. If that isn’t the society you want, don’t give it your assent.
This is from the live blog: “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.”
According to BBC they are prone to detaining Asian people. I do not know if this also has connections with being Muslim.
“So if we already knew that the government was spying on us, what’s the big deal? And more to the point, as I often hear many Americans ask, if you’re not doing anything wrong, why should you care?”
-John Whitehead, Rutherford Institute
Response:
“The big deal is simply this: once you allow the government to start breaking the law, no matter how seemingly justifiable the reason, you relinquish the contract between you and the government which establishes that the government works for and obeys you, the citizen—the employer—the master. And once the government starts operating outside the law, answerable to no one but itself, there’s no way to rein it back in, short of revolution.
As for those who are not worried about the government filming you when you drive, listening to your phone calls, using satellites to track your movements and drones to further spy on you, you’d better start worrying. At a time when the average American breaks at least three laws a day without knowing it thanks to the glut of laws being added to the books every year, there’s a pretty good chance that if the government chose to target you for breaking the law, they’d be able to come up with something without much effort.
Then again, for those who insist they’re not doing anything wrong, per se, perhaps they should be. Because if you’re not doing anything wrong, it just might mean that you’re not doing anything at all, which is how we got into this mess in the first place. ” (John Whitehead, refer to prior link)