All Property Is Theft
I wrote about this farcical David Miranda business last August and six months later my reservations about the case seem to have been confirmed, as three High Court judges throw out the claim that the young man was unlawfully detained.
The BBC reports on the judgment from the High Court which is pretty unequivocal to me, with little if any legal 'wriggle room' and I suspect that's the reason David Miranda has been refused leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
If you ask me, the young man is just a pawn in a bigger political game being played out by his partner, Glenn Greenwald, who is working closely with Eric Snowden, the former American intelligence agent now holed up in freedom loving Russia.
Detained David Miranda loses legal battle
Former Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald has written about state surveillance
The nine-hour detention at Heathrow Airport of an ex-Guardian journalist's partner has been ruled lawful.
David Miranda lives with reporter Glenn Greenwald who has written articles about state surveillance based on leaked documents.
At the High Court, Mr Miranda claimed his detention under anti-terrorism laws was unlawful and breached human rights.
But judges said it was a "proportionate measure in the circumstances" and in the interests of national security.
In his judgement, Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Openshaw, said: "Its objective was not only legitimate, but very pressing."
The nine-hour detention at Heathrow Airport of an ex-Guardian journalist's partner has been ruled lawful.
David Miranda lives with reporter Glenn Greenwald who has written articles about state surveillance based on leaked documents.
At the High Court, Mr Miranda claimed his detention under anti-terrorism laws was unlawful and breached human rights.
But judges said it was a "proportionate measure in the circumstances" and in the interests of national security.
In his judgement, Lord Justice Laws, sitting with Mr Justice Ouseley and Mr Justice Openshaw, said: "Its objective was not only legitimate, but very pressing."
Whistleblower
Mr Miranda said he intended to appeal against the decision.
The 28-year-old Brazilian was in transit from Germany to Brazil when he was stopped at the airport, detained, questioned and searched by police.
He was carrying computer files for Mr Greenwald at the time and had items, including his laptop, mobile phone, memory cards and DVDs, taken from him.
Mr Greenwald has written a series of stories about spying in the US and UK after receiving material from US whistleblower Edward Snowden, who has been given temporary asylum in Russia.
I have been trying hard to follow the twists and turns in the High Court where a young man from Brazil - David Miranda - is arguing that the Police should not be able to scrutinize information that was seized from him recently, at Heathrow Airport, as he attempted to leave the UK.
Now the Police case is that this information presents a potential risk to national security - and that some of it, at least, was 'stolen' or leaked by Eric Snowden - an American intelligence agent (or spy) and former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) - who has since defected and claimed asylum in that other well-known land of the free and the brave - Russia.
Which all sounds a bit absurd - if you ask me.
But anyway, David's defence is that his arrest was unlawful and therefore the Police should not be allowed to scrutinise his property without permission - and that, in any event, all he (David) was doing was transporting 'information' on behalf of his partner - Glenn Greenwald - an American who writes for the Guardian and is based in America.
What I can't quite get my head around is why is it OK for David and his chums to pass on leaked information or data - property that clearly belongs to someone else - and yet they immediately cry 'foul' if someone behaves in the same way towards them.
Would David object, for example, if someone (a publicly spirited Police officer, for example) now leaked information about his and his partner Glenn - if it was subsequently shown that they were engaged in some unlawful activity or wrongdoing?
Now I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right and the Police are obviously there to uphold the law and not take it into their own hands - but nonetheless it does strike me as a bit of a double standard.
I listened to David on TV the other night and heard him say that he wasn't really sure about the nature of the information or data he was carrying - which sounds rather daft I have to say - and no doubt he was going to tell his airline carrier, when asked, that he had personally packed all his own bags - and that he was not carrying anything for anyone else.
A standard question for air travelers these days - when I last checked in at least.
The High Court has allowed the Police to continue their search of David's belongings or other people's belongings - depending on which statement is true - so long as what they are looking at relates to national security.
Although the question that immediately jumped into my head was - 'How do you know what relates to national security, if anything, if you don't look at all the information that's been seized?'
All of which means that life would be so much simpler - though not necessarily better - if we all lived our lives by the old anarchist slogan 'All property is theft!'
Mr Miranda said he intended to appeal against the decision.
The 28-year-old Brazilian was in transit from Germany to Brazil when he was stopped at the airport, detained, questioned and searched by police.
He was carrying computer files for Mr Greenwald at the time and had items, including his laptop, mobile phone, memory cards and DVDs, taken from him.
Mr Greenwald has written a series of stories about spying in the US and UK after receiving material from US whistleblower Edward Snowden, who has been given temporary asylum in Russia.
Edward Snowden leaked information about state surveillance
Steven Kovats QC, representing the home secretary, previously told the High Court that the secret material seized from Mr Miranda could have ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda.
But Mr Miranda's lawyers argued the detention at Heathrow was illegal because it was carried out under the wrong law: Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
They said that in reality he was detained on the say-so of the security services so they could seize journalistic material.
Mr Miranda was carrying 58,000 highly classified Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) files, the judge said.
He added that Oliver Robbins, the UK's deputy national security adviser at the Cabinet Office, had stated that "release or compromise of such data would be likely to cause very great damage to security interests and possible loss of life".
What is schedule 7?
Steven Kovats QC, representing the home secretary, previously told the High Court that the secret material seized from Mr Miranda could have ended up in the hands of al-Qaeda.
But Mr Miranda's lawyers argued the detention at Heathrow was illegal because it was carried out under the wrong law: Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000.
They said that in reality he was detained on the say-so of the security services so they could seize journalistic material.
Mr Miranda was carrying 58,000 highly classified Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) files, the judge said.
He added that Oliver Robbins, the UK's deputy national security adviser at the Cabinet Office, had stated that "release or compromise of such data would be likely to cause very great damage to security interests and possible loss of life".
What is schedule 7?
- Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows UK police to stop, examine and search passengers at ports, airports and international rail terminals
- Police officers do not need to have a "reasonable suspicion" that someone is involved in terrorism before they are stopped
- A passenger can be held for questioning for up to nine hours and must give the examining officer any information requested
In his ruling, Lord Justice Laws said: "The claimant was not a journalist; the stolen GCHQ intelligence material he was carrying was not 'journalistic material', or if it was, only in the weakest sense.
"But he was acting in support of Mr Greenwald's activities as a journalist. I accept that the Schedule 7 stop constituted an indirect interference with press freedom, though no such interference was asserted by the claimant at the time.
"In my judgement, however, it is shown by compelling evidence to have been justified."
Lord Justice Laws added that he had to balance press freedom against national security, and concluded: "On the facts of this case, the balance is plainly in favour of the latter."
Following the judgement, Mr Miranda said in a statement published on his partner's website.
"But he was acting in support of Mr Greenwald's activities as a journalist. I accept that the Schedule 7 stop constituted an indirect interference with press freedom, though no such interference was asserted by the claimant at the time.
"In my judgement, however, it is shown by compelling evidence to have been justified."
Lord Justice Laws added that he had to balance press freedom against national security, and concluded: "On the facts of this case, the balance is plainly in favour of the latter."
Following the judgement, Mr Miranda said in a statement published on his partner's website.
The Intercept that the ruling would hurt the UK "far more than me" and showed the country's "contempt for basic press freedoms".
"I will appeal this ruling, and keep appealing until the end, not because I care about what the British government calls me, but because the values of press freedom that are at stake are too important to do anything but fight until the end," he added.
The High Court has refused Mr Miranda permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal but he can petition the court directly and ask them to hear the case.
"I will appeal this ruling, and keep appealing until the end, not because I care about what the British government calls me, but because the values of press freedom that are at stake are too important to do anything but fight until the end," he added.
The High Court has refused Mr Miranda permission to take the case to the Court of Appeal but he can petition the court directly and ask them to hear the case.
'Clear vindication'
Home Secretary Theresa May said the judgement "overwhelmingly supports the wholly proportionate action taken by the police in this case to protect national security".
"If the police believe any individual is in possession of highly-sensitive stolen information that would aid terrorism, then they should act. We are pleased that the court agrees," she said.
She added that the work of police and intelligence agencies was "made much harder as a result of intelligence leaks".
Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Helen Ball said: "Some commentators have characterised the stop as an attack on journalistic freedom; this was never the case.
"The judgement is a clear vindication of the officers' conduct, demonstrating that they acted lawfully and in good faith throughout."
Home Secretary Theresa May said the judgement "overwhelmingly supports the wholly proportionate action taken by the police in this case to protect national security".
"If the police believe any individual is in possession of highly-sensitive stolen information that would aid terrorism, then they should act. We are pleased that the court agrees," she said.
She added that the work of police and intelligence agencies was "made much harder as a result of intelligence leaks".
Metropolitan Police deputy assistant commissioner Helen Ball said: "Some commentators have characterised the stop as an attack on journalistic freedom; this was never the case.
"The judgement is a clear vindication of the officers' conduct, demonstrating that they acted lawfully and in good faith throughout."
All Property Is Theft (23 August 2013)
I have been trying hard to follow the twists and turns in the High Court where a young man from Brazil - David Miranda - is arguing that the Police should not be able to scrutinize information that was seized from him recently, at Heathrow Airport, as he attempted to leave the UK.Now the Police case is that this information presents a potential risk to national security - and that some of it, at least, was 'stolen' or leaked by Eric Snowden - an American intelligence agent (or spy) and former employee of the National Security Agency (NSA) - who has since defected and claimed asylum in that other well-known land of the free and the brave - Russia.
Which all sounds a bit absurd - if you ask me.
But anyway, David's defence is that his arrest was unlawful and therefore the Police should not be allowed to scrutinise his property without permission - and that, in any event, all he (David) was doing was transporting 'information' on behalf of his partner - Glenn Greenwald - an American who writes for the Guardian and is based in America.
What I can't quite get my head around is why is it OK for David and his chums to pass on leaked information or data - property that clearly belongs to someone else - and yet they immediately cry 'foul' if someone behaves in the same way towards them.
Would David object, for example, if someone (a publicly spirited Police officer, for example) now leaked information about his and his partner Glenn - if it was subsequently shown that they were engaged in some unlawful activity or wrongdoing?
Now I take the point that two wrongs don't make a right and the Police are obviously there to uphold the law and not take it into their own hands - but nonetheless it does strike me as a bit of a double standard.
I listened to David on TV the other night and heard him say that he wasn't really sure about the nature of the information or data he was carrying - which sounds rather daft I have to say - and no doubt he was going to tell his airline carrier, when asked, that he had personally packed all his own bags - and that he was not carrying anything for anyone else.
A standard question for air travelers these days - when I last checked in at least.
The High Court has allowed the Police to continue their search of David's belongings or other people's belongings - depending on which statement is true - so long as what they are looking at relates to national security.
Although the question that immediately jumped into my head was - 'How do you know what relates to national security, if anything, if you don't look at all the information that's been seized?'
All of which means that life would be so much simpler - though not necessarily better - if we all lived our lives by the old anarchist slogan 'All property is theft!'
