"We will also seek a mandatory order that all data seized and all copies be destroyed, and recalled if transferred to third parties."
I'm interested to see how this demand in particular works out. Way to put the shoe on the other foot.
Wonder if there's a defence fund I could contribute to?
This. This is why we need lawyers. This is why we need lawyers with the bones of 50 full men strewn about their lairs. This is why we need lawyers with nasty, big pointy teeth.
It'll be interesting to see what happens here. Explains why home secretary Theresa May was on the BBC today stating that she thought the detention was lawful.
many people forget or never knew that the cute shakespeare quote "first thing we do, we kill the lawyers" was uttered by a character explaining the pathway to a dictatorship.
Well that's an ironic name.
What got me was the paradox of Schedule 7 pointed out in paragraph 28, that had Miranda been arrested as a terrorist he would have had more rights than being stopped under Schedule 7 granted him.
Theresa May thinks a lot of things.
So it turns out that not only did the UK government underestimate Mr Greenwald or Mr Miranda, it failed spectacularly to think this through. If I'd bothered to think about it, I'd have guessed that the first lesson in UK Spooks 101 would have been assessing operational risk. You know, the things that might happen if you take course of action X.
I've always enjoyed good spy and espionage novels, but as this case is making very clear it's obvious that the best characters in the genre are operating at several orders of intellectual magnitude beyond what's on display here. It's a wonder to me that UK spooks are even dressing themselves in the morning, let alone spying on anyone or analysing terrorist threats.
I find it incredibly amusing that the governments justification for holding Miranda under anti-terror laws was to protect his data from terrorists.
You know, like how when an MP is threatened with violence, they're arrested for GBH to protect them from their assailants.
If I recall Greenwald has money, an inheritance or something. Anyhoo, now he's got a mean mad bunch of British barristers hounding the legal shit out of Cameron's govt. Let's see if the UK's courts are as supine as US courts. I do believe the UK has some surprising 1st amendment violating press laws. I believe its not legal in the UK for journos to publish leaked state secrets. And the govt will argue the NSA news reporting is aiding terrorists, thus its terrorism. Don't ya just love the way law enforcement types see the world? I just don't know how those questions will play out in the UK courts. Anyone out there more familiar with the relevant UK law?
Well, I know we don't have a 1st amendment, so it's impossible to violate it.
The Committee to Protect Journalists has also sent a letter to the UK Government: https://www.cpj.org/2013/08/cameron-should-probe-miranda-detention-return-mate.php
Well, you can contribute to Glenn Greenwald's journalism... That'd be a start.
Via Cryptome: "As always, donations [to Glenn Greenwald] can be made via paypal (UnclaimedTerritory@yahoo.com), at Google Checkout (link here), or via mail (checks should be made payable to Dos Santos Management, LLC and sent c/o Daniel Novack, 360 Furman Street, #931, Brooklyn, NY 11201. "
And out of the chaos, a voice spoke:
"Smile and be happy, for it can always be worse".
And I smiled, and I was happy, and it did get worse.
What if the UK police decides in the future to use "enhanced interrogation" (if the 9h detention, stripping the detainee of all rights, is not enhanced enough) and literally fxxxs the detainee in the axx. Will someone send lawyers who then demand that condoms must be used?
Sorry about the language, but didn't David Miranda say in his statement that he felt these guys were fucking with his mind for 9 hours?
It makes me sick to my stomach to read Theresa May's lies. If anything it's her job to intervene when the executive is doing something wrong and prevent it from happening, not to look the other way and let it happen. Of course she is complicit, as is every other politican/official who had advance notice.
I'm pretty sure that sending lawyers and/or having nice little protest marches will not lead to change. I kind of like the way the Thais dealt with an unbearable situation in 2008.
They did something that had a real impact and forced change while being as peacefull as possible. Lucky they were as their police and military had the decency to stay out of this conflict. I wonder if the Britsh police and military would be just as decent, frankly I doubt it.
And I'd really like to see 10,000 Brits in yellow shirts inside Heathrow airport, blocking all traffic until the government thugs resign.
and here's the link to David's statement
I'm not certain that "thinking" is the right word to describe what goes on in her head.
Playing the devil's advocate here, wasn't there a strong likelihood that this person was carrying top-secret and stolen documents... wouldn't that alone be justification for 'some' type of detention?
Evidence based law enforcement is much more compelling than grudge based law enforcement.