Breech of Anti-terror laws ??? so Im suing you !

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by DesktopCommando, Aug 20, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. David Miranda To Launch Legal Challenge

    So the boyfriend of the Journalist that broke the Snowden story was held under regulations when passing through Heathrow, after [FONT=Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif]he had visited US filmmaker Laura Poitras who has been working on the Snowden NSA files with Mr Greenwald and The Guardian.[/FONT]

    [FONT=Tahoma, Arial, sans-serif]So under a suspicion that he was transporting stolen information, he was detained search and released within the guideline of the Law, and now the Press is whinging about it "freedom of the press", why ? was hacking "freedom of the press", seem the press are above the law in all aspects [/FONT]
     
  2. If his case is without merit as you say, he will lose and have to pay both lots of costs. Then you will be happy.

    I don't see, by the way, how 'terrorism' laws are applicable in the Snowden case.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I'm very much in two minds about this, owing to not knowing the exact facts of the case.


    On the surface it looks very much like classic intimidation of the press - but there is a nagging voice at the back of my mind pointing out that anyone can call themselves a "journalist" and we can't treat them differently just because they do. The law is still the law, and applies to everyone.
     
    • Like Like x 7
  4. They use terrorism law because it makes life easy for them -police. Failing to answer questions is an offence, no lawyer has to be present and for nine hours they can do pretty much as they like. It is something which should be used spareingly or there will be calls for it to be revoked. In this case I think it was an abuse of process.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. I think someone somewhere is using a honeypot pretty boy to get access to secret information, and I dont think its the good guys.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  6. Without knowing the full facts of the case it is difficult to make a balanced judgement, and so I don't think it can be termed an abuse of power. From what little is known, it certainly seems to fit the rather broad definition of terrorism (from the Terrorism Act 2000) and so on the face of it the officers were within their right to stop and question Miranda under schedule 7. According to the Met, and despite what Greenwald and the Guardian say, it would appear that a solicitor was contacted on behalf of Miranda, and it seems that he attended the detention. It is important to recognise that despite the Guardians protestations, Miranda was not and never has been a journalist, and was thus not entitled to any form of journalistic protection. I know that presumption is often dangerous in this type of circumstances, but I would wager that the fact that Miranda wasn't a journalist, was the very reason that Greenwald & the Guardian used him to move the material around (otherwise you've got to wonder why Miranda was carrying the intelligence rather than Greenwald, especially as he claims not to know what it was). The whole case seems to be a cynical exploitation of Miranda by Greenwald and the Guardian, which went horribly wrong, and which they are now trying to detract attention from by making as much smoke & noise as possible.


    Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
     
    • Like Like x 3
  7. If this was the NAAFI I'd say that this proves all journalists are shitcunts. But it's not, so I won't.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Its a difficult one, if he did have stolen confidential secrets I can see why he was stopped, however if he did have them why was he then released?

    Another troubling thing is the fact that the police or whom ever knew he was the partner of the Jurno, not exactly common knowledge so to me its obvious not only are the security service tracking so called known/suspected terrorists movements but now it seems the partners of jurnos that embarrass governments.

    Finaly Labour can shut up, they introduced the law under which he was detained, the Muppets.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  9. Extract..The detention has prompted a storm of protest from civil rights campaigners and an apparent coalition split.

    Oh goody.


     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. Dave's on track.
     
  11. I think the point is that Border Control and Police have the power to detain and question in order to determine if a Section 41 suspicion is reasonable.

    Maybe it is a Catch 22. If the detainee refuses to disclose information the suspicion becomes reasonable ?

    An immigrant does not have a right of entry, first Border Control check out his status. This is the same thing with the word "Terrorism" appended.
     
  12. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Reviewer Book Reviewer Reviews Editor

    From my POV the authorities either had intelligence or strong suspicion that, following known contacts of the journo that his partner may be carrying some dodgy info. He was therefore stopped and questioned with his electronic equipment, which he will get back if nothing is found.

    We maintain a border service and security organisations to maintain the safety of this country. If someone's nose is put out of joint to protect my country then so be it.
     
    • Like Like x 8

  13. My understanding of the law is that the detention would be lawful with no advance intel. Because the power is there to detail to question to thus determine if suspicion under the Terrorism Act 2000 is meritted. I don't have a beef with this. Because at every step of the way a person remains under the protective umbrella of the Crown Administration of Justice. IE At some point judiciary have a say.

    For the law to be framed any other way would not make sense in an anti-terrorism purpose.

    My POV. Mind you if Kent Police used this one on me it is pretty much certain I have already complied with the Common Law (Misprision of Treason) and laid my information with the Justices copied to the Chief constable (even though he is usually named in the Information as a suspect traitor).
     
  14. It's not as if Jorno's don't have a history of getting hold of illegally obtained information. Known links to the Snowdon case, it's not going to require a long meeting over whether he's worth a bit of investigating.
     
  15. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    We have just invented ARRSE's own version of "Godwin's Law" and I claim the prize! :)


    What is it with young Brazilian chaps anyway? Isn't Lord Mandleson's pal a young Brazilian chap? Mind you, as some of their women are stunning, I suppose it's the same with blokes.