Trust Us

I suspect they have their home-grown anger at him too, since the revelations embarrassed the UK government (the GCHQ and G20 stuff). While it seems like a clear abuse of a law prone to abuse, I’m a bit surprised that the transit through Heathrow hadn’t occurred to him as a potential problem. Airport transits are dangerous places for people whose name might show up on lists. Ask Maher Arar.

Airport transits are dangerous places for people whose name might show up on lists.

Perhaps it didn’t occur to him that he was a person whose name might show up on one of these lists, which we are regularly assured contain only Very Bad Terrorists and the occasional Regrettable Error?

Greenwald is already concerned that he would be arrested if he returned to the US. The goal, apparently, is to make it impossible to travel freely in and out of Britain as well.

See http://www.salon.com/2013/08/08/glenn_greenwald_offered_brazilian_protection_from_u_s_will_not_accept/

travel to the US.

I remember falling out with my partner (to this day!) because Wole Soyinka had been held up at Heathrow; I remarked that celebrities endlessly wouldn’t fill in landing cards and made trouble. It is not the greatest submission in life to fill in the fucking form on the plane and be polite at the desk. I do so on the US border and do not whine about it.

(If it turns out he’s been totally reasonable, let this stand as a record of me being wrong.)

“When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents,” Greenwald said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/25/greenwald-snowden-s-files-are-out-there-if-anything-happens-to-him.html

Wikileaks posts 400 gigabytes of encrypted ‘insurance’ data online

12 hours ago

Yes the Morales affair really hasn’t attracted as much attention as it should have. If the USA can force the plane of another country’s head of state to land and be searched – something that would have been considered an act of war in simpler times – there is clearly nothing much it will not do, regardless of technicalities. I suppose we already knew that from the cavalier way in which unmanned planed are sent into other countries to kill their citizens, but it was startling to see it displayed with respect to a head of state.

I sometimes think an understandable wish to distance themselves from eccentric conspiracy theorists or Hollywood movie plots has caused many people to reflexively understate or ignore the extent to which the USA now believes it is entitled and ought to intervene anywhere in the world, any time it likes, to advance its own interests. And client governments like those of Australia and the UK are only too happy to cooperate (or imitate, as the case may be).

It night not have had anything to do with Snowden. Maybe the authorities thought he was connected with Al Qaeda. Or something.

John Cole at Balloon Juice lets us know that Andrew Sullivan has also lost patience with the powers that be over this affair.

It’s one thing to intercept our every conversation, stripping us of even the illusion of privacy, so long as it’s in a good cause, but detaining a traveler who is not a member of a despised and suspect group and impounding his hardware based merely on his associations is another thing entirely.

To each his own threshold.

Here’s chapter and verse from the 2000 Act for why Miranda was detained.

Schedule 7:

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).

Paragraph 40:

(1)In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—
(a)has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b)is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
(2)The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.

Of all those sections with specific offences, the relevant ones are probably 58 and 58A:

58 Collection of information.
(1)A person commits an offence if—
(a)he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2)In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.

58A Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1)A person commits an offence who—
(a)elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i)a member of Her Majesty’s forces,
(ii)a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii)a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)publishes or communicates any such information.
(2)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.

Collecting or possessing information “of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism”, and collecting or communicating information about members of the armed forces “of a kind (etc)”, are offences carrying a maximum 10-year sentence. Of course, the “reasonable excuse” clause ought to let Miranda out – it ought to let out Greenwald, Poitras and Snowden, for that matter. In practice, apparently not.

Just to finish off, here’s the 2000 Act’s definition of terrorism. It’s long – in fact it’s longer and more complicated than anything I’ve quoted so far.

(1)In this Act “terrorism” means the use or threat of action where—
(a)the action falls within subsection (2),
(b)the use or threat is designed to influence the government or an international governmental organisation or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c)the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause.

(5)In this Act a reference to action taken for the purposes of terrorism includes a reference to action taken for the benefit of a proscribed organisation.

So “terrorism” legally includes any politically-motivated activity which destroys any property, endangers anyone’s life, endangers the health and safety of a section of the public or is designed to disrupt an electronic system; it also includes the threat of any such action.

The individual was appropriately suspected of carrying stolen, highly classified documents. Greenwald himself has prominently mentioned his partner as being the recipient of such documents, or the courier for such documents. Of course he was detained and searched.

Greenwald’s plan, to the extent he has one, is to stoke outrage and focus attention upon government surveillance – or more specifically, to focus attention upon his reporting of government surveillance.

This type of episode, operatically told by Greenwald in a state of high dudgeon, perfectly suits Greenwald’s plan. As far as the government, there are a few possibilities, given that the governments involved are well aware of Greenwald’s PR predilections:

1) names were added to lists for detainment and questioning when passing through border checks; procedure was followed when such a name came up; there was no specific plan put in motion for this event. We have a tendency to ascribe strategic intent to acts performed by an enormous bureaucratic apparatus, even though such acts are sometimes simply those of personnel following procedures without being explicitly guided or directed (other than having certain procedures issued to them, of course). The Cuban Missile Crisis featured a few famous examples of this.

2) one of the data storage items carried had a flaw, inherent or created, that might allow authorities to decrypt and read information contained. Seizing it was worth the PR points scored by Greenwald. This scenario is not far-fetched.

3) If amateurs like Greenwald are going to be carrying around highly classified documents that could – in Greenwald’s description – do grave damage to US national security, then the US, the UK, and others will want those documents to consistently be strongly encrypted to defend against the attempts of other foreign governments to acquire the documents. Searches like this enable the UK, the US, and others to check on whether Greenwald and Company are adhering to good security practices, and to “encourage” them to continue doing so. Fostering a sense of paranoia among Greenwald & Co. who carry such sensitive documents is important to national security, and so is worth the PR points Greenwald scored.

5) The documents were traveling in a manner or were otherwise susceptible to an operation to collect and decrypt them by a foreign government. Safeguarding the documents in this case was worth more than the PR points Greenwald scored (this would also be part of the motivation for the search and seizure if (2) is true).

6) Using a VPN is only as secure as the computers being used. While it is easy to teach someone how to use a VPN, it is not easy to teach someone how to avoid extremely well crafted surveillance software and other devices that can be installed on a computer through a variety of vectors. Knowing this, Snowden may insist on physical couriers for certain communications. Airport searches and seizures such as this severely restrict his ability to do so securely.

As to 6, I note that if that is one of the objectives of the tactic, then there are disadvantages as well as advantages. While the US Government would not be thrilled with the New York Times or The Washington Post having the information in their hands, and deciding what to publish and what to withhold as too damaging to security, I also think that the USG would be more comfortable with that scenario relative to one where Wikileaks or its radical brethren are in control.

At this point, Snowden has established himself as a sufficiently public figure that he doesn’t need to hold really damaging national security information as hostage to ensure his own safety. The smart move would be to limit any additional documents for publication to two collections of files, and to distribute one to the NY Times, and another to The Washington Post. The keys to the insurance package should be destroyed.

Keys to various files in those collections can be sent to the NY Times and The Washington Post, from time to time. This measured pace of releases ensures that Snowden can maintain his relevance with organizations like Wikileaks that want to use him (and undoubtedly will provide him with funding, certain social amenities, and so on). But it also lowers the magnitude of legitimate threat he poses, and shifts the information being provided into a more respectable, more trusted, and more legally protected arena.

So when does he get his cell phone back? Never? Nine hours isn’t enough to steal/copy all the data from it?

It doesn’t matter. If returned, it must be regarded as compromised, turned into a “roving bug” (as the FBI call it). Its basicly trash now. Ditto all the other seized electronics.

23: probably right about that. The BBC story notes that “Any property seized must be returned after seven days.”

Not knowing anything about UK law, I don’t know what legal recourse he’d have if he proved that his laptop/phone were bugged by the gov’t.

@IdiotSavant

You would assume that Greenwald et al. had moved to working off read only boot media on random computers (ideally antiques, keep those pre 2003 desktops) and disposable phones before this point – it is startling quite how quickly the dystopian surveillance state imagined by people like Ken McLeod has come into being.

The erosion of civil rights in America and its client states is now running on “Internet time”.

It’s a pretty narrow restriction, if a person does not mention at arrest something they later rely on in court the prosecution can draw that to the jury’s attention.

For example if you claim at trial that you had an alibi, however you failed to tell the police this at the time of your arrest which might have allowed them to verify it and eliminate you from enquiries. The jury may infer that the alibi was constructed later.

Curious, but why does anyone bother responding to Andrew F. He’s long winded, tedious, self-important and of no significance to anyone outside his immediate family (and possibly not even to them).

You can boil down his argument to anything that governments do to protect themselves is okay, so long as they passed a law making it okay. This makes the Nazi’s actions legal, at which point Andrew F’s entire schtick implodes via Godwin’s law.

@23: If returned, it must be regarded as compromised, turned into a “roving bug” (as the FBI call it). Its basicly trash now. Ditto all the other seized electronics.

Not trash!!! The Black Hats really really really want to have a peek…

@30: The devils’ advocate has a purpose. Internet commentary is filled with initial reports of outrageous things. A lot of these fall apart once the facts are actually in. It’s therefore useful to critically examine these claims, especially ones that you’re predisposed to believe in.

Credibility matters, and Greenwald has a long track record of misleading initial claims followed by back-pedaling (without ever acknowledging error, or the possibility of honest disagreement). It’s possible that the Brits were trying to intimidate Greenwald. It’s possible that they thought he had stolen documents related to British intelligence and cooked up a reason to stop his partner. I think this is a dubious application of an anti-terrorism law if so. But if new facts emerge to make things worse, or better, than they look we should be prepared to change our minds.

#36: Well that’s probably how most people look after a long flight…

I have no problem with probing Greenwald’s story, though given the history of the British government with regards to anti-terror/spooks, Greenwald’s story sounds depressingly familiar.

I guess what I’m asking for is a better Andrew F. One actually worth having an argument with. Or at the very least, one who can write concisely enough s.t. I might bother reading what he has to say (consider that a hint Andrew).

“Section 7 is for use only in ports, airports and similar transit zones, and the authorities do not need to have any reasonable suspicion of wrong-doing to invoke it. Those detained have no recourse to legal representation but their refusal to answer questions can be prosecuted as an offense. This law drives a coach and horses through an individual’s right not to be arbitrarily detained or have their belongings confiscated, and the right – conditional in the UK in any case – to silence.”

Sadly this no right to silence or legal representation is not unusual in an airport. As I found out one day when dealing with the American immigration system. No lawyer, no right to silence, not even a contemporaneous record of the questioning (interrogation if you like. It’s written up by the agent from memory afterwards.).

No, I don’t approve of it either but I do want to point out that it’s not unusual.

That record you must then sign even if you dsagree with the agent’s memory under threat of deportation (deportation means no visits to the US ever again. Withdrawing an application to enter, which you can do if you do sign, means only having to apply for visa before trying to enter again).

Another thing I found out the hard way once is that the only place you cannot buy insurance for is inside a customs shed. So if some customs officer decides to “drop” a computer you’ve a valid export licence for there’s no possible come back to anyone.

“HM Customs & Excise had enormous legal powers, much more than the dibble, since forever. ”

Indeed. And that was always the problem with the merger of IR and Customs. All of those fearsome powers are now available to HMRC, not just to the customs section of it.

You can boil down his argument to anything that governments do to protect themselves is okay, so long as they passed a law making it okay. This makes the Nazi’s actions legal, at which point Andrew F’s entire schtick implodes via Godwin’s law.

You might want to look up Godwin’s Law there, friend.

I’m not really sure why it’s a moral outrage that the UK intercepted a transfer of stolen classified material by detaining the person carrying it at an airport, questioning him for a full day, and then releasing him unharmed.

I can see an argument that the law’s definition of terrorism is too expansive, that it could be used unethically, and that therefore the definition should be tightened. However, given the law as quoted by Phil above, its use by the UK here seems within the bounds of reasonable interpretation. Nor was it used unethically to punish political dissent; it was used to seize stolen classified material, and to question the person aiding the transfer of that material.

I wonder if Greenwald realizes that his threats to punish Britain by publishing more classified material than he would have otherwise, i.e. to publish classified material he would not have published acting simply as a journalist, actually lend greater credence to the UK’s actions under this law than might otherwise be the case.

I’m not really sure why it’s a moral outrage that the UK intercepted a transfer of stolen classified material by detaining the person carrying it at an airport, questioning him for a full day, and then releasing him unharmed.

You seem to have more knowledge than the rest of us as to what went on here. Please demonstrate how you know this. Also explain why the UK authorities had good grounds to suspect him of posessing this ‘stolen classified material’. Vague hand waving will not be acceptable. Hard evidence is required.

. However, given the law as quoted by Phil above, its use by the UK here seems within the bounds of reasonable interpretation.

So you don’t care what the law says, so long as there’s a law. Given, as I said above it’s impossible to pursue this argument without invoking Godwin’s law. However, given its impossible to engage you without invoking Godwin’s law, by logical conclusion you cannot be engaged and if noone can argue/troll with you on the internet, you don’t exist.

If you don’t exist, what the bloody hell are you doing wasting our time here.

I’m not Andrew F but I’ll take a shot:

(1) the material is US classified, not UK classified. Why does US classification justify arrest in a country that is not the US? No classification without representation, surely?

The NSA has a long and storied history of co-spying with GCHQ (we’ll spy on your folks, which you can’t legally do, and you’ll spy on ours, which we can’t legally do, and then we’ll trade!). It seems plausible that some of the classified NSA data might describe GCHQ surveillance or said cospying arrangements. Those documents are classified by the US government, but the same information, at least the bits that describe GCHQ’s involvement, would likely be classified by the UK government. I mean, information is what gets classified, not documents per se. That’s why people with security clearances can’t read news articles about leaked information: having classified information on your computer is a problem rather than just specific classified documents.

(2) how do we know that the classification process is not hiding evidence of serious crimes, or at least widespread unacceptable behaviour by governments?

We absolutely do not know that; in fact, I think it is certain that the classification process has been abused to cover up a great number of serious crimes.

(3) “political dissent” and “posessing classified material” are not disjoint

I think that’s true in the US. In the UK, given the official secrets act, I’m not sure if it is still true. Being in possession of classified data (by the UK government) is a crime in the UK I believe.

given the law as quoted by Phil above, its use by the UK here seems within the bounds of reasonable interpretation

Andrew, the law as quoted by Phil above was essentially designed to make operations like this possible. Of course what happened to Miranda was lawful. Admittedly there’s nothing in Schedule 7 about “see if chummy’s carrying documents which our ally would like back; if he is, confiscate them, ask him what he was intending to do with them, and let him cool his heels for another hour or three”. But there doesn’t need to be: all that’s needed is possession of information which could be of interest to a terrorist organisation (check) and lack of a reasonable excuse (check, for appropriate definitions of ‘reasonable’). It’s an alarming demonstration of just how capacious and adaptable our contemporary counter-terrorist legislation is.

musical mountaineer – it’s there in black and white, in schedule 7 of the 2000 Act

Thanks, Phil, though I had less than the ghost of a doubt to begin with. I wasn’t being sarcastic when I said this is the way the world works now. A little idiomatic, perhaps, but sincere.

None of your namby-pamby “no comment”s here.

Oh, come on. Am I really obligated to storm in here and rage at everybody, all the time? I could probably rage at Andrew F. a little.

that the UK intercepted a transfer of stolen classified material

Andrew F[uckwit] is apparently possessed of confidential information, and thus breaching operational security, or he’s talking out of his hat.

For all we know, Border Plod may well have confiscated a cache of highly classified cat videos.

Oh, I remember going around all this with the lawyers around eight years ago with torture and “illegal combatants.” Let’s just say I don’t quite understand lawyers. I haven’t learned much since then, but I have learned a little despite all the noise that surrounds.

I don’t think you should concede the legitimacy of existing power structures, institutions, hegemony, and their work product at the very start of the discourse. This is the ontological failure of liberalism.

Now, back to Zizek trashing Butler and Laclau.

Indeed. Explicit judicial backing for the border search exception has grown broader over the past decade, particularly with regard to electronic devices, while federal law now routinely extends Border Patrol activities up to 100 miles inside the US.

I don’t know about the British system, so let’s pretend this happened in NYC.

No, you clearly don’t know anything about the British system. Parliament is supreme. It can do whatever it likes. Recently, there have been some moves to curb this absolute power – such as the embedding into English law of t he ECHR, via the Human Rights Act. However, the Human Rights Act has no special status – it is an Act of Parliament like any other and could, theoretically, be repealed.

The UK could be in breach of treaty (ie the ECHR) but that would have no internal effects. There has been no significant restructuring of the UK constitution, whatever some people might think.

I find it quite striking there is no source for the classified material claim — which they attribute to Greenwald — anywhere other than the NYT. I can’t find a quote on the Guardian that resembles any admission like that.

I found out that The Guardian was paying for Mr Miranda’s trip ( not initially reported by the Guardian) and that he was alleged to be carrying classified material – see the NYT link on#46. This makes the actions by the UK gov legal.

Firstly, in what sense does the suspicion that Miranda was carrying classified material make the government action legal? Explain your working.
Secondly, declaring that Miranda’s detention was legal doesn’t end the argument, as you seem to think. Most of the discussion in the UK has been about the law itself, not about whether police actions were justified in terms of that law.

Andrew F @ 41

“I can see an argument that the law’s definition of terrorism is too expansive, that it could be used unethically, and that therefore the definition should be tightened…”

No doubt you can see that argument – after all, it’s right there in front of you, all but poking you in the nose – but what you make of it, alas, must remain hidden from the ken of mere mortals. If you were to do any more than acknowledge that it could be there, your meticulously constructed house of cards would come crashing down. This is, of course, the essence of every post you make; an unrelenting flow of sophism in the service of authority.

in what sense does the suspicion that Miranda was carrying classified material make the government action legal?

Under the Terrorism Act, they can hold him for up to nine hours if they suspect him of, among other things, publishing or possessing with intent to publish any information that might be useful to a person preparing a terrorist attack. (The defence is that you had a reasonable excuse for doing so: i.e. yes, a map of London would be useful to a terrorist, but I need one to find my way around.)

Repeal gravity? Time-travel? Death penalty for redheads and people with last names starting with “J?” Expropriation of all private property?

No, no, yes and yes, respectively.

ajay – don’t help him! I know that’s how it works in the state of the law, but I was interested to know why ‘Gray’ thought it was so obvious that “chummy could be carrying classified material” made the detention lawful. Guess we’ll never know now.

Phil @69, do you really not understand the official secrets act or my comment at 45?

@Phil

Read this if you will
http://joshuafoust.com/the-miranda-detention-troubling-from-all-sides/

As far as your second point in 61 gies I didn’t suggest the argument about the law itself should be ended as any reasonable reading of “Question the law by all means ” would indicate.

He was actually offered legal advice, which he declined.

He was offered legal advice so long as he took one of the lawyers from a list provided by the spooks interrogating him. Not quite the same thing, as I’m sure you’ll acknowledge.

#62 I’m delighted that so many CT readers, after blithely ignoring this issue for many years now, have finally decided to pay attention.

You know this how. ANd in the same spirit of your post, what you have done in response to this issue?

one of the lawyers from a list provided by the spooks interrogating him

aka the police station duty solicitor?

Possibly Alex, but I read somewhere (and cannot find now) that he was not allowed to talk to the Guardian’s lawyer while detained.

I’m not hugely interested in the legalities of the action either way. The problem with this particular bill has always been it broadly defines almost anything the authorities decide to arrest you under as terrorism. It’s hardly the first time it’s been abused.

And whether Greenwald, or possibly Rusbridger, were baiting the authorities (it’s possible, but he’s always struck me as a little naive – Rusbridger on the other hand is anything but naive). Well perhaps, but nobody made them take the bait. The fact that the authorities couldn’t see this was bait (what did they think he’d have on him?), or were too stupid to realise how this would play out, tells you a lot about their mindset at this stage. Just as in an earlier age the Spycatcher affair did.

Interesting question. Who was responsible for this? I’m guessing foreign office, as it does seem like the kind of obsequious dumb-fuckery that Hague would do. On the other hand – both Theresa May and Cameron are just as capable.

refusing to acknowledge reality.

Yes, Parliament could expropriate all private property if it wanted. Of course it could.

No they couldn’t, and you know damn well they couldn’t. I could phrase it “not gonna happen” or “without a revolution” but the reality, the material fact, is that Parliament tomorrow could not expropriate all private property.

“Yes, it could, of course it could” is the realm of angels and miracles. And the thing is, I think you know this.

The reality is not the Theoretical Power, but the historical and material conditions of its exercise. I’m sure your “could expropriate” would necessarily involve something like Civil War, a chopped head, and herding cats with multiple private interests and ideologies. Yet somehow the Theoretical Power exists somewhere ontologically outside and above the necessary conditions?

Yes, Bush could torture and Bush/Obama can lock up innocent kids forever. They can record everything we do. They can detain non-terrorists.

The Law, either codified or common, is totally irrelevant to what they can and cannot do.

Phil, and Katherine @50:

The law itself as described in this thread is not one I would favor for the United States. At this point I do not think either, though, that the law in question is a “moral outrage.” Instead it’s within the range of reasonable policy choices that a nation might make, and one which does not violate human rights. But I’m not greatly familiar with this law, and so upon learning more I may change my mind.

As to the particular application of this law here, it’s hard to see what the law enforcement officials in Britain did wrong, much less “morally outrageous.” They were not ethically obligated to refrain from using this law. The subject of their search and questioning was returning to Glenn Greenwald after making a trip to see Laura Poitras, who has stated that she prefers to use intermediaries to transfer highly sensitive data, due to the risk of electronic surveillance. This trip was paid for by The Guardian. Clearly the purpose of the trip was related to Greenwald’s and Poitras’s ongoing review and reporting of classified material taken by Snowden. Miranda himself has admitted that he was ferrying data between Greenwald and Poitras, but has claimed that he does not know what he was transporting (just as an aside, I don’t know what he told the British agents questioning him – in the US, at least, if Miranda made such statements to federal agents, and those statements were deceptive, Miranda would have committed a crime).

Given these facts, it is highly likely that Miranda was carrying stolen classified material related to counterterrorist surveillance programs. I suspect there would be multiple legal grounds for detaining him for questioning and searching his possessions for such material, including a forensic examination of any devices capable of data storage or communication, as there would be in the United States.

Ignore incomplete parenth. remark “(nor, a fortiori, that the information in question, while ‘of a kind’ that is ‘likely to be useful'”.

being in possession of information about underpants is probably not going to be used as the sole pretext for convicting someone.

I’m not so sure. Have you ever read The Pelican Brief?

Turbulence – you may be arrested on suspicion of breaching the Official Secrets Act; you may even be detained for several hours and released without charge. Not at a port, though. Miranda was detained under provisions applying specifically to ports and airports, viz. Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which says nothing at all about the OSA or about classified information.

I do not believe that they are saying “Trust us” at all. They are saying “Obey us or face the consequences”. As we in the U.S. have learned, it does not matter in the slightest which party is in power when it comes to the security state. It exists independent of political parties as well as the constitution and the arrangements that derive from it.

This morning I took a few minutes to take a brief look at the 2000 Terrorism Act, particularly sections 40(1)(a), 40(1)(b), and Schedule VII.

It strikes me that there are two possibilities, the second more troubling than the first.

There is something to the argument that Schedule VII authorizes the detention and questioning of a person at an airport for the purpose of determining whether that person falls under 40(1)(b), and that the UK either knew before ever detaining Miranda, or should have known shortly after questioning him, that he did not. The authorized purpose thus fulfilled, he should have been released.

Against this, there is the argument that Schedule VII requires no suspicion at all that a person falls under 40(1)(b), and requires no particular level of suspicion to continue detention and questioning. That is, it does not matter whether an officer or agent estimates the chance of a person falling under 40(1)(b) to be .01%, 1%, 20%, 50%, or 90% – the law authorizes the detention and questioning of the person for further determination until the legally allotted time expires and no further authorization is granted.

The issue therefore would not be the UK’s level of knowledge concerning whether Miranda fell under 40(1)(b) prior to, or even during, his detainment and questioning, but whether the UK’s detainment and questioning were in fact limited to the purpose of assessing still further (.001% perhaps) whether Miranda fell under 40(1)(b). If it was, then the detainment and questioning were legal.

Of course, the problem with that line of defense is that it practically admits the use of Schedule VII here to be mere pretext. Legally, that’s not necessarily a problem (I’m not familiar enough with British law to say), so long as the detainment and questions remained within the scope of the purpose given by Schedule VII (this might account, incidentally, for what Miranda perceived as odd questions regarding protests in Brazil). Is it a problem ethically for law enforcement? Probably not; aggressive use of available powers under law is acceptable given certain stakes and given the legitimacy of underlying motivation. That they suspected Miranda of ferrying stolen classified material is undoubtedly the true reason that he attracted attention, but the police are allowed to look for legal ways to stop and question him for other purposes.

Personally, I think that’s what happened here.

However, there is another possibility, one linked to certain warnings Greenwald gave in recent months concerning Snowden. One may recall that in an interview Greenwald claimed that Snowden had information so sensitive that its release would do more damage to the US military in one minute than anyone else has ever managed to inflict, that it would be the “worst nightmare” come true for the US. This remark was made as part of a warning to the US that no unusual actions should be taken against Snowden.

Now, I think the idea that the US would kill Snowden (or dispatch local gangsters to do so, in Snowden’s B-movie informed speculation) is ridiculous. Nonetheless, it was a mistake for Greenwald to make or deliver such a threat. It is a threat clearly designed to influence government policy; and it quite plausibly involves the endangerment of the lives of those involved in certain operations undertaken by the US and its allies. It also has the effect of raising the stakes rather dramatically.

The threat doesn’t feel terroristic because it warns the US against doing something that US is incredibly unlikely to do and that the US shouldn’t do. It’s almost as though Greenwald delivered a threat to release such information if the US were to bomb the offices of The Washington Post.

However, to officials in the UK and the US, it may feel more as though someone pointed a loaded gun at them and warned them not to kill the cashier handing them a cup of coffee. Though it would be absurd and wrong for them to do so, they’d still view the threat itself as quite serious.

And so Miranda could be considered to fall under 40(1)(b) insofar as he was relaying information related to that threat.

Greenwald sounded like he threatened retaliation against the UK for Miranda’s detention, though he’s disputed aspects of the way it has been reported. Taking him at his word as to what he really meant, he still came quite close to threatening retaliation.

Greenwald should sit down with someone with a richer understanding of how the US and the UK and others would view such threats internally before he makes any more. I don’t think he fully grasps the possible legal consequences of doing so, or the institutional pressure within governments that might push for those legal consequences if they take the threat seriously. I’d speculate about the tendency of libertarians to view the world in a very narrow way generally, that impedes their ability to understand the viewpoints and actions of others, but I’m guessing the comment is far too long already.

Gosh, it suddenly all makes sense with AndrewF!

Adorno, et. al. in “The Authoritarian Personality” “invented a set of criteria by which to define personality traits, ranked these traits and their intensity in any given person on what it called the ‘F scale’ (F for fascist).”

The UK could be in breach of treaty (ie the ECHR) but that would have no internal effects.

It does have internal effects; a court can rule that such-and-such action was in breach of the act and therefore illegal. That includes primary legislation. Both have happened.

Sigh. Alex, the ECHR is not an act, it is a treaty. The Human Rights Act is the act of Parliament which incorporates the provisions of the ECHR. Yes, laws have been proclaimed to have breached the Human Rights Act. However, the HRA itself is a standard act of Parliament and could be repealed like any other. It has no special status.

If it was repealed, the UK would still be a party to a the treaty that is the ECHR. Which it could withdraw from at any time.

This is, you understand, in theory. But, for bob’s sake, this theory is UK theory which is entirely different from US and NYC theory, so your original ‘let’s pretend this is America so I can apply things I think I know to the rest of the world” is still ignorant nonsense.