Use of UK terror law to detain Miranda 'a disgrace', 'sheer unadulterated state oppression'

[Catherina]

Use of UK terror law to detain reporter's partner 'a disgrace'



By Estelle Shirbon

LONDON | Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:59pm BST

(Reuters) - British authorities came under pressure on Monday to explain why anti-terrorism powers were used to detain for nine hours the partner of a journalist who has written articles about U.S. and British surveillance programmes based on leaks from Edward Snowden.

Brazilian David Miranda, the partner of American journalist Glenn Greenwald, was detained on Sunday at London's Heathrow Airport where he was in transit on his way from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro. He was released without charge.

"The detention of David Miranda is a disgrace and reinforces the undoubted complicity of the UK in U.S. indiscriminate surveillance of law-abiding citizens," Michael Mansfield, one of Britain's leading human rights lawyers, told Reuters.

"The fact that Snowden, and now anyone remotely associated with him, are being harassed as potential spies and terrorists is sheer unadulterated state oppression," he wrote in an email.

Miranda was detained under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which allows police to stop and question people travelling through ports and airports to determine whether they are involved in planning terrorist acts.

...

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/uk-britain-snowden-miranda-idUKBRE97H0DN20130819

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

1. Yep. The heat on the "Intelligence Community" everywhere is increasing.

And, the culprits are getting desperate to avoid the light.

[xiamiam]

4. yet the desperation has them doing some really stupid stuff

billions of dollars wasted on cartoon like sinister characters and programs spying on everyone everywhere. We're all in this grade b made for television movie which at times feels like a disaster film and at other times an updated keystone cops join forces with the dark lord of the world in a spy spoof. Our govt has not looked good since this started a few months ago and it just keeps getting worse. Obama, who welcomes a discussion has his talking points but I've seen no discussion...how about a real discussion? Its quite amazing that nothing of substance has been offered to us unless of course we are just supposed to say..okie dokie, and believe everything we're told. It is amazing. Brute force and intimidation. That's the ticket if one questions.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

5. They're pefectly willing to have a "discussion/debate" with themselves or those who support them.

Fortunately, we can count on their ham-fisted stupidity to show the cracks in the lies and repression.

[Catherina]

17. That offer ranks right up there with their investigation of themselves by themselves n/t

[MisterP]

11. their power lies in the fact that they can get away scot-free with such hamhandedness

it's a situation no less scary than these PTBs orchestrating the MSM and manipulating Congress, business, and party primaries

[railsback]

2. Exactly how many definitions do you think there are for 'acts of terror'? One?

One of the MANY definitions:

counterintelligence - intelligence activities concerned with identifying and counteracting the threat to security posed by hostile intelligence organizations or by individuals engaged in espionage or sabotage or subversion or terrorism

Just more unfounded, faux outrage.

[GeorgeGist]

6. So in your mind counterintelligence is an 'act of terror'?

woo is me.

[railsback]

10. *Groan*

Its in the books. I didn't write it. If there was no said definition in writing, then there would be a 'scandal', but since its there, this all comes down to people not liking a law, amounting to nothing more than whining.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. You found a definition for 'counterintelligence', not for 'terror'

You not only didn't write it, you didn't understand it. What you copied is a definition of something completely different from 'terrorism'.

[railsback]

14. Geezuz. The term is 'act of terrorism', which includes a very long list of definitions:

terroism, terror, biological, chemical, cyber, domestic, eco-warfare, international,
narco, nuclear, state-sponsored, theoterrorism, terrorisation, bombing, dirty war,
COUNTERINTELLIGENCE, ring containment, stash house, biometric, and so on.

Liberals are supposed to turn over every rock to find the truth, not skip some because
they look too heavy to overturn.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. You are claiming 'counterintelligence' is an act of terrorism?

That's the dumbest thing I've seen claimed on DU in weeks. Counterintelligence is what governments do, to find out about things like espionage. Or about terrorism.

[railsback]

16. Well, its in the definition of 'acts of terrorism'

And, of course its 'dumb'. Anything not fitting the meme is 'dumb'.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. No, it's not in the definition. You appear to have confused a link with a definition

That list of terms you gave indicates you think that WordNet, or something like it, is saying that any phrase it lists means the same thing:

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?o2=&o0=1&o8=1&o1=&o7=&o5=&o9=&o6=&o3=&o4=&s=terrorist+act&i=2&h=100000

Notice that "facial recognition" appears slightly further down. This does not mean that 'facial recognition' is an act of terrorism. It means there is some link between 'facial recognition' and 'act of terrorism' - which, in this case, is that one thing you might use to investigate, or prevent, an act of terrorism is facial recognition (it appears because their example sentence is "they used face recognition to spot known terrorists"; similarly, the definition of "counterintelligence" measures terrorism as one thing counterintelligence is used to work against).

Can you not see that?

Maybe you should stick to a simple dictionary, since you don't know how to use WordNet.

[railsback]

21. Well, if you say so.

The U.K.'s Terrorism Act 2000 definition doesn't even require the word 'violence' in their acts of terrorism, just 'disruption'.

[Comrade Grumpy]

7. Well, that's a novel definition of "terrorism," having nothing to do with terrorism.

Unless you're calling spying terrorism.

Or are you saying counterintelligence is terrorism?

Or are you saying counterintelligence directed at possible spying is actually directed at terrorism?

It looks like the Brits broke their own terror laws in the way they detained Miranda.

[railsback]

9. Its in the definition

Therefore, any argument is null and void until said definition is removed. Its irrelevant wether people like the definition or not. The U.K. had every right to detain per definition.

[woo me with science]

3. We are facing tyranny now.

Free nations require a free press. These actions toward journalists and their families are the behaviors of totalitarian rule. They cannot be permitted to stand.

More and more it becomes clear that we are at a grave place in our history. Corporate fascism is no longer a hypothetical. It is wielding power now and assaulting the very roots of freedom and privacy for millions. And a deeply disturbing propaganda machine is in place to attempt to normalize it all.

[Hydra]

8. This is the turning point

Between when it was all an open secret and when it all comes out into the open.

Interesting times.

[Catherina]

18. +1. Any clearer and it will be a done deal already n/t

[xchrom]

12. Du rec. Nt

[kenny blankenship]

20. But you don't understand - he's actually guilty!

He ran an unlicensed press and printed terrible things about the government, and he was tried and found guilty. He doesn't deny it. How can people want him to get away with it and keep himself from the reach of the authorities? He actually did the things they accused him of and he's proud of it! He needs to turn himself in and face the music.

[woo me with science]

22. kick