1984 Arrives: UK cops officially detained David Miranda for thoughtcrime

[kpete]

crimethink - All crimes begin with a thought. So, if you control thought, you can control crime. "Thoughtcrime is death. Thoughtcrime does not entail death, Thoughtcrime is death.... The essential crime that contains all others in itself."

UK cops officially detained David Miranda for thoughtcrime
Cory Doctorow at 7:45 pm Sun, Nov 3, 2013 • 38 •

David Miranda is journalist Glenn Greenwald's boyfriend, but he's best known for being detained under the Section 7 of the UK Terrorism Act while changing planes at Heathrow. The cops held Miranda for nine hours, the maximum allowed under law, without access to counsel, using powers intended to allow the detention of people suspected of connections to terrorism. But it was clear to everyone that Miranda wasn't connected to terrorism -- rather, the UK establishment was attempting to intimidate people connected to the Snowden leaks through arbitrary detention and harassment.

Now that Miranda's lawyers are chasing down the people responsible, we're getting a more detailed picture of the process that led up to Miranda's detention. Before a Section 7 detention takes place, British cops have to file a form called a Port Circular Notice, and several drafts of the Notice used to detain Miranda have come to light.

The final draft argues that Miranda should be detained under terrorism law because "...the disclosure or threat of disclosure is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism."

In other words: thoughtcrime.

the rest:
http://boingboing.net/2013/11/03/uk-cops-officially-detained-da.html#more-265886

[DetlefK]

1. That's not terrorism. That's blackmail. Hypothetical blackmail.

[bemildred]

2. Well, clearly, the government is terrified. nt

[Savannahmann]

3. So the disclosure of the truth is terrorism.

1984 hasn't arrived, it's now established.

[leftstreet]

4. DURec

[jsr]

5. +1984.

[Blue_Tires]

6. Where is the full text of the charging document?

[progressoid]

7. So if we read what they write, does that mean we're terrorists too?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

8. Yours is 1984 double speak. Miranda was in possession of

Illegally obtained classified documents. Quit making stuff up.

[bvar22]

9. The OP directly quoted the "Port Circular Notice" used to justify the detainment of Miranda.

[div class="excerpt"The final draft argues that Miranda should be detained under terrorism law because "...the disclosure or threat of disclosure is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism."


That can hardly be called "making stuff up".

He did express an opinion of what that document said.
That also does NOT qualify as "making stuff up".

Ironically, your accusation that the OP is "making stuff up"
is in reality Making Stuff Up.

Funny how that works, isn't it?

[gcomeau]

10. For fuck's sake.

No, serving as a real physical courier for classified information that was stolen from the intelligence service of a friendly power is not "thoughtcrime". It's actual crime. Whether you agree with the motivations of the guy who stole it or not.

Miranda was CARRYING LEAKED MATERIAL FOR GREENWALD.

His detention was entirely justified. Sorry, but it was.

Calling it terrorism was a bit of a stretch though.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

11. "infludence a government": Doesn't that cover voting, reporting, lobbying, campaign contributions+ ?

[LeftishBrit]

12. As E.Y. Harburg put it in 'Rhymes for the Irreverent'...

The truth is so top secret
It only stands to reason
That anyone exposing it
Is culpable of treason.

[backscatter712]

13. Leaked or whistleblown info has always been considered under the protection of the 1st Amendment.

Perhaps the leak of such info by Snowden was a crime, but Snowden no longer has the info, the press does. The publication and activities around the publication of that info by members of the press has always protected by the First Amendment and equivalent press protections in free countries.

To compromise such protections is to compromise liberty itself.