David Miranda's detention had no basis in law, says former lord chancellor

[dkf]

The Metropolitan police had no legal basis to detain David Miranda under the Terrorism Act 2000, Tony Blair's former lord chancellor has claimed.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton, who helped introduce the bill in the House of Lords, said that the act makes clear that police can only detain someone to assess whether they are involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of terrorism.

Falconer told the Guardian: "I am very clear that this does not apply, either on its terms or in its spirit, to Mr Miranda."

The peer, who served as solicitor general from 1997-98 and as lord chancellor from 2003-07, was highly critical of the home secretary, Theresa May, who praised the police action at Heathrow on the grounds that the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald possessed sensitive documents which could help terrorists and "lead to a loss of lives". May also said that police had acted within the law.

Falconer said that the home secretary's statement "is putting it too widely".

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/21/david-miranda-law-detention-heathrow

[idwiyo]

1. K&R

[NealK]

2. I hope that some heads are gonna roll.

[LuvNewcastle]

3. This is just another example of why the critics of these

terrorism laws were right. They have enormous potential for abuse, and they've probably been abused as much or more than they've been used legitimately.

[Thinkingabout]

4. I am still wondering why GG would set the one he claim

One he claims to love and care for to be his mule. GG would not make the trip himself but apparently did not care about his closest one and make Miranda to his patsy, WTH? Is there anyone GG would not set up to take the fall? He used Miranda the same way he uses everyone, just keep GG in the news. He is not your friend.

[cui bono]

9. Do you not believe that Miranda is a grown man who can make his own decisions? n/t

[Thinkingabout]

15. Well, guess you could say he made a decision he will need to deal with, again GG,

Claiming to be an attorney who Miranda wanted to call while in custody, could have advised him before the mission started. Once again this is just for show and blown up to keep GG with more crap to write about.

[cui bono]

16. Seems you are assuming what they did and did not dicuss before this happened.

Or do you know what they talked about beforehand?

[Thinkingabout]

18. You are the one who suggested Miranda made his own decision so you need to direct your

Post to yourself.

[cui bono]

20. Whoa there! Why the animosity?

I never presumed what they did or did not discuss. I simply believe that Miranda is an adult, presumably reasonably intelligent, and can make his own decisions. I believe he was perfectly capable of understanding the possible ramifications and consequences of his action. Because of that, I do not believe that GG forced him to do this. How would he do that? Physically? Seriously, how?

I also am not making a claim directly or indirectly, that GG made Miranda carry those files during international air travel. If someone makes that claim they should be able to back it up. I think that's fair, don't you?

These are your words:

I am still wondering why GG would set the one he claim

One he claims to love and care for to be his mule. GG would not make the trip himself but apparently did not care about his closest one and make Miranda to his patsy, WTH? Is there anyone GG would not set up to take the fall? He used Miranda the same way he uses everyone, just keep GG in the news. He is not your friend.

So, back up your claim that GG made Miranda do that. It's clear you hate him, for whatever reason, but that doesn't make anything you say true. You are just allowing yourself to react emotionally and resorting to slander if you don't have proof.

[Thinkingabout]

21. I never said GG forced Miranda to make the trip, I said GG used Miranda as his

Mule. I personally would not have allowed my loved one to do this for me.

[cui bono]

22. You did say the following:

Is there anyone GG would not set up to take the fall? He used Miranda the same way he uses everyone, just keep GG in the news. He is not your friend.

He wasn't "used" if he wanted to do it.

And we agree he wasn't forced to do it.

So... Miranda is an adult capable of making his own decisions, was not forced to do this, but still it's all GG's fault because "he is not your friend" and all those other things you said about him? That just doesn't make sense.

[Thinkingabout]

24. Then Miranda should not be upset he was detained nor should GG be upset. If both of

Them did realize the possibility one could be detained then they are not ready for big time, when you play with the pros you will not get any slack when you are losing the game. Again, if Miranda was my loved one I would not have allowed him on the mission, I care more for those I love.

[Yo_Mama]

27. But the issue is whether the law was followed

And the fact that he was detained under suspicion of being a terrorist implies that there was no other legal pretext.

I am not a huge fan of Greenwald's, but I think reporters who press the limits do help to detect cases in which the government has just gone off the rails, and that it is one of the legitimate functions of the press, and that it is this legitimate function of the press which was considered so important that it received constitutional protection in the US.

In the UK they don't have our constitution, but they do have a longstanding common law which embodies many of the same protections, and it is quite disturbing and odd to see the UK doing this.

[Thinkingabout]

34. I am upset about th theft which start this whole mess, we also have laws against espionage but

Some have put themselves above the law. I would think somewhere in Miranda's trip he was put on a watch list, GG has threatened the US and UK about releasing more classified information. There has been an admitted connection between Snowden and GG. Sometimes the pros knows more than others and in this case it appears GG and Miranda are in over their heads. There are consequences.

[cui bono]

40. Are you also upset about the revealings of said "theft"?

You realize Snowden was a whistleblower, right? It's not really theft, as you call it. It's easy to label it as such so as to dismiss it and make Snowden the bad guy, and as you would like, GG as well. Although I don't see what GG has to do with it as he's reporting what was given to him, so the animosity towards him is completely unfounded. We should all be grateful he is bold enough to publish what the NSA has been doing.

The fact remains that without Snowden's actions we would have no idea of the extent of the NSA's spying on US citizens and of their transgressions and secrecy. Add to that the fact that the spying is outsourced, so how confidential is it really, and it's a big mess, and would never have been curtailed at all if he hadn't not released this information.

You should be thankful for him if you value democracy at all. Remember, we're supposed to be governed by the consent of the people, so we should know what's going on and we should not be being spied on and having all our communications data stored for future perusal by the govt or private contractors on a whim or for nefarious reasons. There is no reason at all for this to be going on. It needs to stop and Snowden's release got people worried about it and talking about it. Finally.

[Thinkingabout]

41. Why would I be upset about the revealings in 2013 by Snowden when this information was talked

About by George Bush in 2005? If you wanted to be upset you are years late. Did you know there was a protocol for Snowden to follow to out wrong doings in security departments? Did you know the Whistleblower Protection Act does not cover those who are working in the NSA? Did you know he was under a Code of Ethics oath in which he violated? Did you know theft is also a violation?

There was proper ways of handling this, he chose not to do the proper protocol. I don't know where and what you have been reading and listening to since 2005 but his is not new information. Yes, there is new information and new technology developed everyday and will be more in the future. Some needs to arrive in the world of reality.

What have you just learned since Snowden stole from the NSA that you did not know before?

[cui bono]

43. How much was this talked about when it was revealed that GWB did it?

Also, it has been expanded and "legalized" under Obama.

Have you seen the movie War on Whistleblowers by Robert Greenwald? You know what happens when you take the "proper channels"? You get royally screwed and nobody hears about what you have to say, it gets ignored at best, the info buried and your life ruined at worst. Even when you are found to be right in the courts.

[Luminous Animal]

28. I've been arrested for civil disobedience with full knowledge that I was likely going to be arrested

It didn't make the handcuffs, the incarceration, and the court date pleasant.

[joeybee12]

33. Yeah, detention was a possiibility when you're dealing with a jack-booted thug government

and their apologists who say they get what they deserve...pathetic.

[cui bono]

38. I think they. and all of us. should be very upset. And very troubled.

I realize the detention was in the UK but our admin was informed of it ahead of time and therefore is complicit at best. So what about our first amendment? And even if the UK doesn't have that, is it okay to use a terror law as loosely as that? What was the purpose of detaining him? They surely knew they weren't getting the only copies of those files since they are in a digital format, easily duplicated.

Also, I think it's hard for a partner in a relationship to "not allow" the other to do something, don't you?

[Thinkingabout]

42. Let us start simple, did Snowden inform the proper channeks before he stole the files?

Did Snowden inform us about delivering those files to a foreign media source, China or Russia? Did GG inform us of printing information?

GG has tried to jump into the pros game, he does not have the knowledge to play their game. Guess what he is being watched nit only by the US but many other countries. When his mule appears in locations where others are which are being watched it will result in the mule being watched also. You want to talk of rights, what about rights of nations in protecting their countries? What about my right to feel life liberty and a pursuit of happiness?

Did you know anytime you use a phone the other party could be recording the conversation? Do you think every phone call you are party on is recorded?

[cui bono]

44. Honestly, I can't make any sense of your post.

"rights of nations in protecting their countries"

What??? So basically you'd rather lose our democracy and constitution in order to defend the govt's actions. That's what I get from your post and other posts of yours. Fine. Glad there are those fighting for our democracy instead of giving it up so easily as yourself.

Governed by the consent of the people.

And btw... while I defended the term "mule" as not being dehumanizing, you are really misusing it here and I'm sure you are doing it purposely. You should figure out why you have so much hatred of GG and deal with it before posting on this subject as it is affecting your ability to be rational.

Also, you never dealt with the original issue we have been discussing, the fact that Miranda is an adult and can make his own decisions and how difficult it is to "not allow" your spouse to do something they want to do. I really want your answer to this since you are slandering GG at every turn saying he put Miranda in this position and you would never allow your spouse to do something like this. Which btw... should not have been a dangerous thing to do at all. He was a citizen NOT suspected of terrorism in the least and yet he was stopped under the terrorism law. That is simply bullshit, there's no two ways about it.

[Thinkingabout]

45. I think I am repeating myself again but since you insist I answer this question again I will.

I would not allow my loved one to go on this mission, especially knowing who he would be meeting someone already being watched. If Miranda made his own decision then he must accept whatever happened as reality. You van be unhappy about the mule title but I am nit the one who made the decision to take the mission. Under the same situation if I undertook a mission such as Miranda I would also be a mule.

[ljm2002]

17. You lack any credibility on the matter...

...since you persist in using the loaded term "mule".

IOW FU.

[Thinkingabout]

19. Loaded term, WTH do you think "mule" means?

[Bluenorthwest]

30. Very loaded term. Dehumanization being the entire point of using the term.

The correct term is 'courier' for a human, a mule is a beast of burden, and animal. Which is why you persist in using the term.

[Thinkingabout]

36. Dehumanizing, yep this is what happened to Miranda. Miranda was smuggling

Items for use by GG, yep look it up, Miranda was a mule.

[cui bono]

39. I completely disagree with Thinkingabout, however, the term mule is a common term

for people who carry drugs for others.

I don't think it applies in this case, but I don't see it as dehumanizing or loaded since it is a common term for drug trafficking.

[Aerows]

31. Very loaded

dehumanizing term.

[Thinkingabout]

37. Yep, look it up, I sure did suggest Miranda make this trip, when you take on smuggling

Then you take the luggage with you. What is dehumanizing is the fact Miranda was a mule for GG.

[sabrina 1]

23. I think his partner is an adult, is he not? I imagine at his age, he can make his own

decisions. Since he wasn't doing anything illegal, I imagine he decided there was nothing for him to worry about.

Why would you assume that Glenn Greenwald 'sent him' anywhere? He is not a child, Would you say that about a grown married woman who makes a decision to do something? I would find it extremely insulting for anyone to think my SO could 'send me' anywhere.

But most important, he was doing doing nothing wrong. He was carrying Source Material, a perfectly legal activity for someone to do to help a journalist.

This meme has been floating around that somehow Greenwald's partner needs to be 'sent' and that he is not capable of making his own decisions.

Seems odd to me to even have such a thought about a grown man.

[Jackpine Radical]

26. This is a deflection.

The story is about the actions taken by the Brits, not about the character flaws of the victim or his spouse.

[Little Milly]

5. We need a terrorism law to be able to stop somebody

whom we suspect is carrying stolen classified information?

[Aerows]

32. Just cause

waves at you!

You know, as in just cause, not just speculation, conjecture or because we don't like someone.

[Ichingcarpenter]

6. What a uniquely British name he has

Charles Leslie Falconer, Baron Falconer of Thoroton



is a British Labour politician and barrister, who became the Lord Chancellor and the first Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (a position created originally to replace the position of Lord Chancellor) in 2003.


In May 2007, the Department for Constitutional Affairs (DCA) became the new Ministry of Justice with an enhanced portfolio, that encompasses all the responsibilities of the former DCA plus some functions transferred from the Home Office.

Upon that reorganisation taking effect on 9 May 2007, Lord Falconer became the first Secretary of State for Justice, while keeping the title and role of Lord Chancellor


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Falconer,_Baron_Falconer_of_Thoroton


anyway kick and nominsted

[LuvNewcastle]

7. He doesn't look like I imagined.

I pictured someone tall and thin with a top hat and a monocle. Another illusion shattered.

[Ichingcarpenter]

8. yeah me too

maybe because he Scottish and not English?

His name sounds like something out of Monty Python.


His Qualifications to speak up on this though are beyond reproach

[LuvNewcastle]

11. He was born in Scotland.

Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 06:16 AM - Edit history (1)

And I agree, he should know what he's talking about. I think was Lord Chancellor when they wrote that law they're abusing now. Sounds similar to the guy in the U.S. who wrote the Patriot Act and is now talking about how that law is being used for puposes for which it was never intended.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130612/18210323435/author-patriot-act-says-administrations-claims-about-nsa-are-bunch-bunk.shtml

edit: The British terror law was passed in 2000, and he became L.C. in 2003. It seems that he was Minister of State at the Cabinet Office at the time the law was passed.

[Ichingcarpenter]

13. So maybe you should edit the other post?

so there is no confusion?

cheers

[Demeter]

10. D'oh! Such laws shouldn't exist in the first place.

If 2000+ years of legal jurisprudence couldn't handle it, then I'd worry. But there was plenty of law to deal with "terrorism" without destroying the body of law humanity has built laboriously and painfully over generations.

This law wasn't "law". It was naked aggression of the State, prettied up in sheep's clothing.

And so is the Patriot Act.

[Wilms]

14. ^

[Yo_Mama]

25. I have wondered

This seems to be a very meaningful distinction. It worries me that the UK did not observe it.

Disseminating information simply cannot be "terrorism", unless that information is about how to commit terrorism, or coordinating terrorist acts, or something of the sort. There must be a very direct connection.

If the Coca-Cola formula gets out are we going to call it "terrorism"? Whack reporters with drones? We're on a rapidly escalating downward spiral here, and I would have been happier to think it was just the US.

[Rex]

29. Yep you know it! GET UR ASS UDER DA BUS!

Please sir.

[RetroLounge]

35. K&R

RL