Glen Greenwald's partner questioned at Heathrow as a terrorist

D.M.N. · 19/08/13 - 02:27

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

Disgraceful to see the Terrorism Act being used in this way, when his partner is in no way, shape or form a terrorist.

BrokenArrow · 19/08/13 - 02:31

Their activity could be construed as an act of terrorism, you don't have to explode a bomb to do harm to your country.

Cheetah666 · 19/08/13 - 02:37

That's a pretty obvious attempt to intimidate a journalist out of doing his job. I hope it doesn't work.

Ads · 19/08/13 - 02:42

Sounds like yet again we are doing whatever America asks us to - despite the fact they are completely uninterested in supporting our current issues with Argentina and Spain.

Raquelos. · 19/08/13 - 02:48

BrokenArrow wrote: »

Their activity could be construed as an act of terrorism, you don't have to explode a bomb to do harm to your country.

If that is truly the case (and I don't agree that it is) then arrest him, charge him and sentence him under the laws that he is deemed to have broken. Do not harass him or his family while they try to go about their day to day lives.

Meercam · 19/08/13 - 02:50

A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We were dismayed that the partner of a Guardian journalist who has been writing about the security services was detained for nearly nine hours while passing through Heathrow airport.

The boyfriends of all Guardian journalists should obviously be allowed to pass through airports without any checks.:rolleyes:

jenzie · 19/08/13 - 02:51

PATHETIC

for nine hours they held him, because the dumbass americans can't keep control of their people?

Harumph · 19/08/13 - 02:55

Its not an attempt to intimidate a journalist at all. Its basic security. Journalist associates or interviews enemy of state, journalist is questioned.

I am absolutely loving this whole wikileaks / Assange / Snowden / Manning / Prism bullcrap.

On one hand you have the moronic tech lead narrative that wants all information to be free, publish all and be damned. Stupidity of the ADD morons that infest the tech press, who are more than happy to proclaim freedom from the man, but are the one and very same that are now screaming blue bloody murder that their privacy has been infringed...

Idiots, morons of the first order.

BrokenArrow · 19/08/13 - 02:55

Raquelos. wrote: »

If that is truly the case (and I don't agree that it is) then arrest him, charge him and sentence him under the laws that he is deemed to have broken. Do not harass him or his family while they try to go about their day to day lives.

If they don't want to be harassed, then don't break the law.

Raquelos. · 19/08/13 - 02:57

BrokenArrow wrote: »

If they don't want to be harassed, then don't break the law.

They haven't broken the law:rolleyes:

BrokenArrow · 19/08/13 - 02:58

Raquelos. wrote: »

They haven't broken the law:rolleyes:

How do you know?

Raquelos. · 19/08/13 - 03:14

BrokenArrow wrote: »

How do you know?

They haven't been arrested or charged.

If someone has broken a law I fully support the legal process running it's course. That is not what happened here.

BrokenArrow · 19/08/13 - 03:19

Raquelos. wrote: »

They haven't been arrested or charged.

If someone has broken a law I fully support the legal process running it's course. That is not what happened here.

The police question people all the time without arresting or charging them.

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to question people who may have been involved in a crime?

boksbox · 19/08/13 - 04:03

BrokenArrow wrote: »

The police question people all the time without arresting or charging them.

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to question people who may have been involved in a crime?

Do they? for 9 hours? you're having a laugh

Harumph · 19/08/13 - 04:06

9 hours is 9 hours, I was held on an aircraft for 23

BrokenArrow · 19/08/13 - 04:20

boksbox wrote: »

Do they? for 9 hours? you're having a laugh

I don't have any sympathy for him, he's in it up to his neck.

DM Andy · 19/08/13 - 04:36

BrokenArrow wrote: »

The police question people all the time without arresting or charging them.

Are you saying they shouldn't be allowed to question people who may have been involved in a crime?

I believe like you do that the police should have the ability to question people that they believe have information about a crime having been committed. My question to you is what crime is Mr Miranda or Mr Greenwald alleged to have committed?

Greenwald is a journalist and has interviewed Edward Snowden. The act of interviewing someone who is wanted by US authorities is not a crime. There would be a justification for the US authorities to question Greenwald if Snowden's whereabouts were unknown but the US know where Snowden is. Note that's a justification for the US authorities to maybe do something so what happened at Heathrow and even if the UK police had a valid reason to question Miranda, how was it Terrorism.

In normal situations, we don't permit police to interview people without them having legal representation. Under the Terrorism Act the UK authorities are allowed to question anyone for up to nine hours without the detained person having any right to a lawyer. According to Heathrow, Miranda was held for eight hours and fifty five minutes. Did it really take that long for the police to decide that he wasn't a terrorist, or was it dragged out for as long as possible to cause Greenwald maximum emotional distress?

DM Andy · 19/08/13 - 04:37

BrokenArrow wrote: »

I don't have any sympathy for him, he's in it up to his neck.

Can you explain exactly how David Miranda is "up to his neck"?

BrokenArrow · 19/08/13 - 04:51

DM Andy wrote: »

Can you explain exactly how David Miranda is "up to his neck"?

You can use google no?

IMO Greenwald should have been arrested for conspiracy.

I have signed the OSA and have worked for both GCHQ and DOD, I know exactly what the responsibilities are.

Don't like the terms, don't take the money.

FMKK · 19/08/13 - 04:57

BrokenArrow wrote: »

You can use google no?

IMO Greenwald should have been arrested for conspiracy.

I have signed the OSA and have worked for both GCHQ and DOD, I know exactly what the responsibilities are.

Don't like the terms, don't take the money.

So you would arrest journalists for publishing material that is clearly in the national interest? Just because the US and UK want to keep their dirty little secrets hidden doesn't mean that no one should stand up to him. And as for Miranda, his only crime seems to be having a journalist boyfriend. But of course, that's now seemingly worthy of questioning under 'anti-terrorism' legislation.

I simply cannot understand how anyone can see such draconian action from states to intimidate journalists as anything other than a moral disgrace.

FMKK · 19/08/13 - 05:01

BrokenArrow wrote: »

How do you know?

You seem perfectly willing to assume that he has committed a crime. In fact, you've all but stated it.

DM Andy wrote: »

I believe like you do that the police should have the ability to question people that they believe have information about a crime having been committed. My question to you is what crime is Mr Miranda or Mr Greenwald alleged to have committed?

Greenwald is a journalist and has interviewed Edward Snowden. The act of interviewing someone who is wanted by US authorities is not a crime. There would be a justification for the US authorities to question Greenwald if Snowden's whereabouts were unknown but the US know where Snowden is. Note that's a justification for the US authorities to maybe do something so what happened at Heathrow and even if the UK police had a valid reason to question Miranda, how was it Terrorism.

In normal situations, we don't permit police to interview people without them having legal representation. Under the Terrorism Act the UK authorities are allowed to question anyone for up to nine hours without the detained person having any right to a lawyer. According to Heathrow, Miranda was held for eight hours and fifty five minutes. Did it really take that long for the police to decide that he wasn't a terrorist, or was it dragged out for as long as possible to cause Greenwald maximum emotional distress?

According to the article, 97% of people questioned under this law are released within an hour, with only 1 in 2000 detained kept for over six hours. Seeing that Miranda was released without charge, it's clear that there wasn't any evidence that he was going to or had committed a crime so nine hours of questioning was clear intimidation.

boksbox · 19/08/13 - 05:31

BrokenArrow wrote: »

You can use google no?

IMO Greenwald should have been arrested for conspiracy.

I have signed the OSA and have worked for both GCHQ and DOD, I know exactly what the responsibilities are.

Don't like the terms, don't take the money.

If you had worked there then you wouldn't be telling us that you had in a public forum.

Harumph · 19/08/13 - 05:50

shit happens

welshfoxy · 19/08/13 - 05:52

His 'work' has put UK and US security at risk. This tiny inconvenience isn't even worth mentioning in comparison.

boksbox · 19/08/13 - 06:08

welshfoxy wrote: »

His 'work' has put UK and US security at risk. This tiny inconvenience isn't even worth mentioning in comparison.

What nonsense

welshfoxy · 19/08/13 - 06:09

boksbox wrote: »

What nonsense

Oh really :rolleyes:

Hey there!

Quick Links

Glen Greenwald's partner questioned at Heathrow as a terrorist

Comments