The article rehashes some old stuff. ...but the point is that the Home Office is officially supporting the action. The key quote is near the end:<p><i>"If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning."</i><p>So, if you oppose this sort of action, you are condoning terrorism. What does that make you? Hmmm... Not sure I like where this is heading.
The interesting thing isn't so much that HO defends the action, which was fully expected, but that it's twisted the position so it no longer has to defend an abuse of a law designed to specifically deal with terrorism. The difference between 'carrying documents to terrorists' and 'carrying documents that if leaked by accident to terrorists would have large national security implications' is <i>huge</i>.<p>If you're carrying classified documents relating to a country's national security apparatus the likelihood is they're going to find something to trap you on, but the way they're going about it is thoroughly dishonest and sleazy. If you oppose the action of retrieving information and abusing one of our laws, then you must be in favour of terrorism and on the list you go.<p>It's another warning basically, keep your head down or face the consequences. Add it on with the U.S. gov pushing for <i>60</i> years for Manning, and high level members of the UK government threatening legal action against a newspaper if they don't turn over/destroy material facts in an ongoing series of investigative journalism.
Personally I think that if terrorists want to destroy our way of life then they're going to need to do it themselves -- I won't do it for them by supporting draconian, baseless, and broad-sweeping laws that delegate powers to people with questionable motives.<p>If we ask these politicians how long it will take to stop the terrorist threat then I'm certain they'd respond "Years, decades, however long it takes."<p>Safety, at all costs, is a prison cell.
I have noticed a tendency to refer to Edward Snowden as anything but 'whistleblower' in the American press. Now, however, even the BBC seems to be using the term 'fugitive'.<p>Strange as it may seem, the Danish press[0] refers to Mr Snowden as 'whistleblower', although my largest issue with this usage is that the word is not Danish, but I applaud the sentiment.<p>I wonder what the term used is in other countries.<p>[0] I can confirm that <i>Politiken</i> (left-leaning), <i>Information</i> (far left) and <i>Berlingske Tidende</i> (right wing) refers to Snowden as a whistleblower.
Way to go, BBC: choosing the darkest possible picture of David Miranda, where he's tired and distraught, so that he can look like a "brownie terrorist" as much as possible. Very classy.<p>I'm not saying they should have airbrushed him WillSmith-style, but he looks a much more regular chap in here: <a href="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2013/8/19/1376928526343/David-Miranda-010.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/20...</a>
The article is a 5 sentences "breaking news" piece not really worth reading. There is a single official quote which goes:<p><i>The Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism".</i><p>I guess it's easier when you just have to phone the White House instead of having to write your own policies :(
<i>If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act</i><p>Yeah, well let's say you could remotely justify the warped logic that journalism is terrorism (which you cannot but let's just suppose).<p>You didn't just seize their possessions, you seized the individual for the full nine hours you were allowed and didn't charge them with anything. So, this was premeditated harassment because they told the US government they were going to hold him while he was still on the flight. You just wanted him to suffer.
I really wish the BBC would link to original sources, and also that the Home Office would publish statements first on the website[1] where there is (currently) no mention of any statement.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publication_filter_option=all&topics[]=all&departments[]=home-office&world_locations[]=all&direction=before&date=2013-09-01&commit=Refresh+results" rel="nofollow">https://www.gov.uk/government/publications?keywords=&publica...</a>
<i>But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism".</i><p>Can obviously be extended to:<p>But the Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen property that would help terrorism".<p>And therefore anti-terrorism laws can be used in any scenario involving anything that could possibly be useful to terrorists (cars, boats, wheelbarrows...).
Let me rephrase: "The Home Office" is defending the airport detention.<p>I doubt anyone in this country agrees with them under the circumstances[1] and by no means do they act on behalf of us.<p>[1] bar some Daily Mail reading crackheads.
let's see....<p>News about the guardian's hard drives being destroyed, the Miranda detention, and Groklaw shutting down all at once today? It is not a good day.
Miranda was held under the Terrorism Act. The interpretation of terrorism as defined by the act can be found here.<p><a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1" rel="nofollow">http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1</a><p>I'm no lawyer, but I'm sure some of you reading this have knowledge of the law. I would like to know how this act can be applied in these circumstances.
This title is confusing : "UK defends Miranda airport detention".<p>The article itself says "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data". Also it seems to be a small blurb of an unofficial comment since there doesn't seem to be a link to an original, official, source.
The actual title is "David Miranda in legal challenge over seized data", not "UK defends Miranda airport detention", it looks like it has been changed on the BBC site.
Just what precisely is this "No 10" business?<p>So, like, "No 10" says it's justified. I don't understand what "No 10" is.
I think this would be a great time for the Queen to speech up and prove she is not just a touristic attraction.<p>Unfortunately I know well she won't dispel my frustrations