Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 19th Aug 2013 14:05 UTC
Legal

The partner of the Guardian journalist who has written a series of stories revealing mass surveillance programmes by the US National Security Agency was held for almost nine hours on Sunday by UK authorities as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

David Miranda, who lives with Glenn Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.05am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.

Miranda also had all his equipment confiscated. He has done nothing wrong - there's no charges, no criminal suspicion, nothing at all. His only crime is being the partner of a famous journalist who, among other things, is one of the driving forces behind shining a light on the NSA's mass surveillance.

There is no war on terror, because the terrorists have already won.

Permalink for comment 570097
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: "UK abuses terrorism law"
by mutantsushi on Mon 19th Aug 2013 23:31 UTC in reply to ""UK abuses terrorism law""
mutantsushi
Member since:
2006-08-18

Although the law throws out any requirement for normally justifiable suspicion, the purpose of questioning is still legally required to pertain to determination of involvement in terrorism, which by all accounts was not even touched upon in their interrogation.

According to the Code of Practice of the Terrorism Act of 2000 itself:
http://tna.europarchive.org/20100419081706/http:/security.homeoffic...

"The purpose of questioning and associated powers is to determine whether a person appears to be someone who is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The powers, which are additional to the powers of arrest under the Act, should not be used for any other purpose."


(props to: http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2013/08/18/theyre-going-after-gr... for bringing that detail to my attention)

Although your point stands that regardless of the details of the law, granting such broad police state powers is practically inevitable to result in abuses such as this.

Edited 2013-08-19 23:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3