General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe UK Home Office Puts ALL Traveling Investigative Journalists on Notice
Maybe it is the law of unintended consequences, but if the British Home Office is to be believed about the justification for detaining David Miranda, then one must ask if they have effectively declared war on investigative journalism (at least in their airports). The Home Office has responded to the Miranda detention.
The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security, the Home Office said in a statement.
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, it said.
Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning. . . .
If this is the rationale used to detain Miranda then would it not be logical to assume that the UK will abide by this again in the future. If the need is, in fact, so dire that THIS law should be applied, then those "in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism" would include ANY reporter that had personal access to Ed Snowden. That would include Barton Gellman of the Washington Post should he ever pass through Heathrow Airport. Gellman was one of the first two reporters approached by Snowden and he was given a great deal of information by Snowden. If the Home Office is serious about this policy it would seem that even Gellman's family members are at great risk of detention by the UK government should their feet ever touch English soil.
If this detention was so vital to the Brits national security, would not ALL people meeting with Greenwald, Poitras, Snowden, Gellman and others be at risk of detention in UK transit zones?
The UK government needs to make clear if reporters should expect to be detained in the UK if they have personally met Edward Snowden or have family members that have met Edward Snowden or even if they have met the people that have met Ed Snowden. They should also make clear who else on the planet is so dangerous to their national security that anyone that has ever met the person will be detained and have their electronic equipment confiscated.
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-britain-edward-snowden-journalist-partner-detention-20130820,0,7319621.story
Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)I'm just curious. Did they bother? Was it even remotely logical?
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Benton D Struckcheon
(2,347 posts)TheBlackAdder
(28,076 posts)Johhny-on-the-Spots come up to tourists and demand that they delete their photos or stop taking them when they are in many parts of London, places that were well known buildings and tourist attractions since they were built. But now, they forbid picture taking.
So, yes...
In England ANYONE can be classified as having information useful to terrorists.