Blatant Intimidation: Glenn Greenwald's Partner Detained At Heathrow Under Terrorism Law, All His Electronics Seized
from the obnoxiousness dept
In a move that is clearly driven more to intimidate Glenn Greenwald than anything else, his partner, David Miranda, was detained for nine hours at Heathrow airport, which he was flying through on his way home to Rio de Janeiro from Berlin. On top of that, all of his electronics -- his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles -- were seized and not returned. This was nothing but basic government thuggery and intimidation. There is simply no credible reason to detain Miranda other than to "send a message" to Greenwald as punishment for doing his job and exposing government abuse. The law under which he was detained, Schedule 7, is extremely controversial already, but it appears that the UK officials were clearly abusing it.As Jerome Taylor notes, Schedule 7 makes clear that the "power to stop, question and detain" applies solely for the purpose of "if they fall within section 40(1)(b)," which you can look at here:
40. Terrorist: interpretation.In short, the only reason you're supposed to be able to detain someone is to determine if they're involved in committing, preparing or instigating "acts of terrorism." Clearly, that's ridiculous when it comes to even Glenn Greenwald, let alone his partner. The law is already ridiculous enough in that it allows officials to detain anyone, even without suspicion, solely for the purpose of questioning them to see if they fall under this section (i.e., having something to do with terrorism). Under the law, they have nine hours to do this questioning, and then they need to release or arrest the detainee. In this case, they held Miranda for all nine hours. This is not common. As the Guardian points out, the government's own stats show that 97% of people detained under this law are released in less than an hour. Only one person out of every 2000 are kept for more than six hours. Yet, suddenly, they had to hold Miranda for all nine hours and then take all of his electronics?(1) In this Part “terrorist” means a person who—(a) has committed an offence under any of sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, or
(b) is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
(2)The reference in subsection (1)(b) to a person who has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism includes a reference to a person who has been, whether before or after the passing of this Act, concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism within the meaning given by section 1.
That's just government thuggery and intimidation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: david miranda, glenn greenwald, intimidation, journalism, schedule 7, terrorism, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they can keep other journalists from doing what Greenwald did, they have achieved their goal. By making it public that they go after your friends and family if you publish secret US files, the chilling effect is much more massive than just harrassing Glenn Greenwald.
It is incredibly mean and would be considered under mafia-related crimes, if anyone else did it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=rW7WlT6OJxE&t=20
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If a group of citizens just snatched these agents in broad daylight, seized all their personal belongings and detained them indefinitely for hours, I wonder how that would make them feel.
What they did to Miranda constitutes blatant abuse of law and authority. For nine hours they treated him like a terrorist, when in fact they're the terrorists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under Mr. Cameron...anything the color orange under his porn filter is blocked and it seems to be an attempt to pander to stereotypical subtypes of conservatives from the liberal politician point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
A lack of empathy is necessary to enter the knife in the back world of politics. This goes double if you want to lead a party, considering the number of knives left in various backs while climbing the greasy pole to the top.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The revelations and abuses about and by our government lately have been nothing but pure greed, evil, and power-hungry.
The root of the problem has so deeply been etched into the government than nothing short of total, violent revolution could topple it. The powers that be a big headed, egotistical, patronizing assholes who have gone full on mommy-state, and at the same time, only seek to line their own damn pockets with gold.
Unfortunately though, the revolution has taken too long.
And with it, a lot of hope about turning the US into a great nation.
They have too much power now.
Power given to them by their citizens because they weren't constantly vigilant.
At this point, the only thing I'm hoping for is for more exposure to their crimes against humanity, and for the public to humble them enough for them to realise the way they're destroying lives, families, and nations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
dog damn i hates me some politicians...
art guerrilla
aka ann archy
eof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miranda is lucky!
If they try and claim he looked like a terrorist(?), they'll still have difficulty explaining why their questioning focused on Greenwald's reporting, not on any potential terrorist attacks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miranda's rights
If they do, we could name them after Mr Miranda. How does "David rights" sound?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sad part is some approve
"Would it be ok for the UK to invade the Guardian newsroom or the FBI to invade NYT newsroom if they think they have classified doc and detain them for 9 hours?"
Some people actually believe that it was all right. One of them being an American.
I just can't believe that there are some people who can justify and rationalize 'anti-terrorism' moves as being productive, especially when it was not anything of the sort with GG and his partner.
Sheer thuggery and intimidation, indeed. The Mafia would be ashamed of this kind of behavior. Even they would have some standards.
Here's a 'shopping list' of how to turn a democracy into a dictatorship in 10 easy steps:
http://www.juancole.com/2013/08/greenwald-terrorist-dictatorship.html?utm_source=twitterfe ed&utm_medium=twitter&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+juancole%2Fymbn+%28Informed+Comment%29
Looks like the UK is following them to the letter. Sad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sad part is some approve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad part is some approve
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Sad part is some approve
Err -- why shouldn't it? If your house is in danger of flooding or having a tree fall on it or getting blown away, don't you think you'd like to know?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Sad part is some approve
Pessimism noted ... however not everyone is found in that pigeon hole.
Polls show a majority in opposition to many political agendas. A big hurdle to change is gerrymandering, but even this maybe soon overcome with the large number of discontented voters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So they used a 'terrorism' law to detain someone, deny them rights to legal assistance, the right to remain silent, held this person as long as possible for reasons so secret no one can be told why... except the NYT.
Shall we prosecute the the lackeys who told NYT's about things seized in a terrorism investigation?
As the advertising people would say, it's time to think Spring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They had no choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They had no choice.
Rumor has it they have found details of a new terrorist plot code named The Alan Parsons Project.
Several preparations for assault have been attempted in the past, preparations A through G resulted in failure. But once the evil lair is finally located, things will be different. Preparations for its' assault will be referred to as Preparation H. It's a really good plan, on the whole Preparation H feels good.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They had no choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couldn't it be that they suspected that Miranda had some digital information with him that was more sloppily protected than that which Greenwald has access to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm not sure what the point of taking it was. Unless the NSA just wants to know what he has on them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Find me the man...
All those public liberties? Poppycock! Who needs them at all?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Proof
If there is the potential for a law to be abused, abuse is inevitable.
Pity we will not get change because the UK has become a nation of unthinking, unquestioning sheep who do not care about others as long as they are OK.
We need a truly liberal government, not the neo-liberal mess we have now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Proof
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Proof
Liberal has to have a limit. Sure Cameron is adopting paleo-conservative social values to law and starting the only process towards less laws by leaving EU. But just removing government will make corporate interests much more important. Not in capturing laws as today, but in getting their own parallel societies rolling.
Own security? extremely common already. Own kindergartens? do exist. Own Schools? Not sure if they exist yet, but I know it is getting close. Own health insurance? Duh. Own Universities? 1000 times yes, specializing people to own R&D department already happens! Own sewage treatment, potable water facilities, roads, electricity production, heat production etc.? Most of it is already happening to some extend.
As soon as you get there, too big to fail is not about companies, but governments...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Intimidation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The UK Press
It's not like any of them would engage in underhanded activities, spying, hacking or any other questionable conduct !!!
Why would ANYONE ever want to investigate them, or question their 'stories' and their embellishments.
This person that was detained is also a little bit more than this reporters gay BF ! Why was that not mentioned here ?
At first I wondered who this Greenwald person was, but then I remembered that he is somehow distantly connected to Snowden and NSA.
Can we get even further away from the facts of Snowden's leaks, lets distract the public with this trivia. After all there appears to be NO STORY about the leaked info to talk about.. And you need page hits somehow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK Press
I also find it amusing that you think that journalistic intimidation is a boon. You should fly to Communist America (in the Animal Farm parody sense, not the actual social system.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The UK Press
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Send It Air Freight
That way they are far, far less likely to get stolen at inspection points, whether completely illegally, partially legally or legally.
Want to make sure it arrives, upload the data to your ISP, want to protect your privacy encrypt it prior to uploading it to your ISP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You omitted worst part of this "law": no right to remain silent.
And by the way: the UK is usually more subtle in its tyranny than the US but only because the serfs there are more accustomed to it. -- Oh, and they're disarmed, so the velvet glove is usually enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You omitted worst part of this "law": no right to remain silent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You omitted worst part of this "law": no right to remain silent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You omitted worst part of this
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I don't mean the "journalism" you see on the telly which is simply regurgitation of what those in power want to populace to believe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance
maybe i'm just seeing connections where none exists, but wouldn't it be interesting if they nabbed him in the airport then that went up, then he was released?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And this surprises anyone how?!
Lawmakers are lazy, power-hungry idiots who rush legislation without even MOMENTARILY considering how it might be abused. Their language is so broad you could detain a poodle for terrorism because it might pee on electronics and bring down plane.
I consider most lawmakers and police as terrorists already and there is really nothing there to change my mind.
Their "let us make you slaves to save you" philosophy doesn't fly with me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Insurance claim
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digital Casablanca.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obama would be proud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Obama would be proud
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If there was ever a doubt of corruption it is staring you in the face. I can not help but wonder just how deeply the US is involved in wanting to see this happen in an effort to control the leaks and what is being released.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Three insightful comments from elsewhere
A):
B):
C):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
B): If you are known to be a smuggler to illegal items, or to be involved with people who do, then don't be shocked to get stopped at the border. "journalist" is not a special pass word that lets you ignore the law.
C): No matter what the documents are, see B. It would be similar to a known drug trafficker showing up at the airport with a locked box that cannot be easily opened, and expecting to just be able to walk it onto the plane without question. This "journalist" made his own bed, he gets to sleep in it now.
D): Another period of time with Techdirt censoring my posts by delaying them until they are not longer relevant. Mike, do you want me to take this more public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
What's stopping you from taking this more public?
Afraid of the ridicule that would follow you around?
We're on pins and needles here dude. Your threats are entertaining!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
B): A 'known smuggler?' What has he been convicted of smuggling? What law was being ignored *by David* exactly? Be specific. Even if you assume Greenwald broke the law (he didn't) what's that got to do with David?
C): David and Glenn are different people. David was detained. Gleen is the journalist and no not a "journalist" a journalist which you would know if you RTFA.
D): Spam filtering is not 'censorship' and what are you on about with 'not longer relevant?' Even if you posted this minutes after the comment you RE to that doesn't fly, the timestamps are less than an hour apart.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
B): You don't have to be convicted of something to be a known smuggler - or to have a direct relationship with someone who has apparently transported state secrets before. This is Glenn's boyfriend, and would be no different from detaining the wife or girlfriend of a admitted narco trafficker to assure that she wasn't carrying anything illegal.
C): See B above. Duh, of course they are two different people, but they are a couple and no, gay men don't get a free pass because their relationship is non-traditional. Again, see B above.
D): it's not a spam filter, it's an idea filter. I don't spam. I never have posted a link on Techdirt (outside of those to answer inane "link needed" troll posts). It's the Techdirt staff deciding they didn't want to have opposing opinions on their site that were reasonable and detailed. Every post (including this one) will go into moderation before being posted. That is a simple way to censor my posts or to make my comments less relevant. They have been quicker today to approve posts, but in the past couple of months it has taken days for posts to appear, which means the story is already 3 or 4 pages back and no longer gets any responses.
The more I point out that this is an issue, the faster the posts appear. You can puzzle that one out for me, the Techdirt staff has been very closed mouthed about their attempts to muzzle dissenting voices.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
That's a non-sequitor. Spam does not have to include links to be spam, and that lack of links is not proof that the comment is actually ham.
This is not about you personally, but I have noticed that the commenters who proclaim that they are being censored to suppress their points are the ones that routinely engage in abusive, off-topic, and spam. I have yet to see any evidence that any comments are being "censored" merely because they dissent from something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
The Article is based on a tweet and still somehow misses a line. Section (1)(a) that Mike ignored includes references to sections 11, 12, 15 to 18, 54 and 56 to 63, of the act. Did anyone read them?
They run to nearly 3000 words and cover an awful lot.
Here.....
11
Membership.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove—
(a)
that the organisation was not proscribed on the last (or only) occasion on which he became a member or began to profess to be a member, and
(b)
that he has not taken part in the activities of the organisation at any time while it was proscribed.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
(4)
In subsection (2) “proscribed” means proscribed for the purposes of any of the following—
(a)
this Act;
(b)
the M1Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1996;
(c)
the M2Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1991;
(d)
the M3Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989;
(e)
the M4Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984;
(f)
the M5Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978;
(g)
the M6Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1976;
(h)
the M7Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1974;
(i)
the M8Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1973.
12
Support.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he invites support for a proscribed organisation, and
(b)
the support is not, or is not restricted to, the provision of money or other property (within the meaning of section 15).
(2)
A person commits an offence if he arranges, manages or assists in arranging or managing a meeting which he knows is—
(a)
to support a proscribed organisation,
(b)
to further the activities of a proscribed organisation, or
(c)
to be addressed by a person who belongs or professes to belong to a proscribed organisation.
(3)
A person commits an offence if he addresses a meeting and the purpose of his address is to encourage support for a proscribed organisation or to further its activities.
(4)
Where a person is charged with an offence under subsection (2)(c) in respect of a private meeting it is a defence for him to prove that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the address mentioned in subsection (2)(c) would support a proscribed organisation or further its activities.
(5)
In subsections (2) to (4)—
(a)
“meeting” means a meeting of three or more persons, whether or not the public are admitted, and
(b)
a meeting is private if the public are not admitted.
(6)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
15
Fund-raising.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
invites another to provide money or other property, and
(b)
intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(2)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
receives money or other property, and
(b)
intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
(3)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
provides money or other property, and
(b)
knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
(4)
In this section a reference to the provision of money or other property is a reference to its being given, lent or otherwise made available, whether or not for consideration.
16
Use and possession.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he uses money or other property for the purposes of terrorism.
(2)
A person commits an offence if he—
(a)
possesses money or other property, and
(b)
intends that it should be used, or has reasonable cause to suspect that it may be used, for the purposes of terrorism.
17
Funding arrangements.
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement as a result of which money or other property is made available or is to be made available to another, and
(b)
he knows or has reasonable cause to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.
18
Money laundering.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he enters into or becomes concerned in an arrangement which facilitates the retention or control by or on behalf of another person of terrorist property—
(a)
by concealment,
(b)
by removal from the jurisdiction,
(c)
by transfer to nominees, or
(d)
in any other way.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to prove that he did not know and had no reasonable cause to suspect that the arrangement related to terrorist property
54
Weapons training.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he provides instruction or training in the making or use of—
(a)
firearms,
[F1(aa)
radioactive material or weapons designed or adapted for the discharge of any radioactive material,]
(b)
explosives, or
(c)
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
(2)
A person commits an offence if he receives instruction or training in the making or use of—
(a)
firearms,
[F1(aa)
radioactive material or weapons designed or adapted for the discharge of any radioactive material,]
(b)
explosives, or
(c)
chemical, biological or nuclear weapons.
(3)
A person commits an offence if he invites another to receive instruction or training and the receipt—
(a)
would constitute an offence under subsection (2), or
(b)
would constitute an offence under subsection (2) but for the fact that it is to take place outside the United Kingdom.
(4)
For the purpose of subsections (1) and (3)—
(a)
a reference to the provision of instruction includes a reference to making it available either generally or to one or more specific persons, and
(b)
an invitation to receive instruction or training may be either general or addressed to one or more specific persons.
(5)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section in relation to instruction or training to prove that his action or involvement was wholly for a purpose other than assisting, preparing for or participating in terrorism.
(6)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
56
Directing terrorist organisation.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he directs, at any level, the activities of an organisation which is concerned in the commission of acts of terrorism.
(2)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.
57
Possession for terrorist purposes.
(1)
A person commits an offence if he possesses an article in circumstances which give rise to a reasonable suspicion that his possession is for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that his possession of the article was not for a purpose connected with the commission, preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism.
(3)
In proceedings for an offence under this section, if it is proved that an article—
(a)
was on any premises at the same time as the accused, or
(b)
was on premises of which the accused was the occupier or which he habitually used otherwise than as a member of the public,
the court may assume that the accused possessed the article, unless he proves that he did not know of its presence on the premises or that he had no control over it.
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F115 years]F1 , to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
58
Collection of information.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)
he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2)
In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.
(3)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that he had a reasonable excuse for his action or possession.
(4)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b)
on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.
[F158A
Eliciting, publishing or communicating information about members of armed forces etc
(1)
A person commits an offence who—
(a)
elicits or attempts to elicit information about an individual who is or has been—
(i)
a member of Her Majesty's forces,
(ii)
a member of any of the intelligence services, or
(iii)
a constable,
which is of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)
publishes or communicates any such information.
(2)
It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under this section to prove that they had a reasonable excuse for their action.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a)
on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or to a fine, or to both;
(b)
on summary conviction—
(i)
in England and Wales or Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(ii)
in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both.
(4)
In this section “the intelligence services” means the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ (within the meaning of section 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
(5)
Schedule 8A to this Act contains supplementary provisions relating to the offence under this section.]
59
England and Wales.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
the act would, if committed in England and Wales, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).
(2)
Those offences are—
(a)
murder,
(b)
an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),
(c)
an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),
(d)
an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and
(e)
an offence under section 1(2) of the M2Criminal Damage Act 1971 (endangering life by damaging property).
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.
(4)
For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.
(5)
Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
60
Northern Ireland.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
the act would, if committed in Northern Ireland, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).
(2)
Those offences are—
(a)
murder,
(b)
an offence under section 18 of the Offences against the M1Person Act 1861 (wounding with intent),
(c)
an offence under section 23 or 24 of that Act (poison),
(d)
an offence under section 28 or 29 of that Act (explosions), and
(e)
an offence under Article 3(2) of the M2Criminal Damage (Northern Ireland) Order 1977 (endangering life by damaging property).
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.
(4)
For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.
(5)
Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown
61
Scotland.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he incites another person to commit an act of terrorism wholly or partly outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
the act would, if committed in Scotland, constitute one of the offences listed in subsection (2).
(2)
Those offences are—
(a)
murder,
(b)
assault to severe injury, and
(c)
reckless conduct which causes actual injury.
(3)
A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable to any penalty to which he would be liable on conviction of the offence listed in subsection (2) which corresponds to the act which he incites.
(4)
For the purposes of subsection (1) it is immaterial whether or not the person incited is in the United Kingdom at the time of the incitement.
(5)
Nothing in this section imposes criminal liability on any person acting on behalf of, or holding office under, the Crown.
62
Terrorist bombing: jurisdiction.
(1)
If—
(a)
a person does anything outside the United Kingdom as an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism, and
(b)
his action would have constituted the commission of one of the offences listed in subsection (2) if it had been done in the United Kingdom,
he shall be guilty of the offence.
(2)
The offences referred to in subsection (1)(b) are—
(a)
an offence under section 2, 3 or 5 of the M1Explosive Substances Act 1883 (causing explosions, &c.),
(b)
an offence under section 1 of the M2Biological Weapons Act 1974 (biological weapons), and
(c)
an offence under section 2 of the M3Chemical Weapons Act 1996 (chemical weapons).
63
Terrorist finance: jurisdiction.
(1)
If—
(a)
a person does anything outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)
his action would have constituted the commission of an offence under any of sections 15 to 18 if it had been done in the United Kingdom,
he shall be guilty of the offence.
(2)
For the purposes of subsection (1)(b), section 18(1)(b) shall be read as if for “the jurisdiction” there were substituted “ a jurisdiction ”.
A non-journalist carrying (possibly) encrypted drives over the border isn't really outside the law is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
"58
Collection of information.
(1)
A person commits an offence if—
(a)
he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b)
he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind."
Wall of text is nice - but next time you should read it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
00447
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Three insightful comments from elsewhere
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If this goes through the courts, maybe we can get a new set of Miranda rights out of this.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hypocrisy
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-23739046
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
which law they applied is not the issue
The fact is that they were going to stop him and take away his electronics in any case. Pulling some regulation or other out of a hat to apply as a reason for nosy parkers who ask is simply a necessary annoyance to the authorities.
If this law had not given them the convenient allowance to detain him and take his stuff, they would have found another. I'm sure some copyright law would have been the next choice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's a normal question when you enter the country. I mean, you could be working for the reds.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new to see here, move along.
Jacob Appelbaum was harassed every trip into and out of the US after he gave the keynote @ the hope conference in place of Julian Assange.
David House, who organized "The Bradley Manning Support Network" likewise had all his electronics seized on a trip out of country. He had to sue to get his electronics back.
Even before the NSA scandal Greenwald's partner on the Snowden reporting, Laura Poitras, has been harassed in this manner for YEARS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new to see here, move along.
Makes me wonder what was on the devices, and how the actual files were transferred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pretty sure this was about the data...
Since his partner was in Germany to meet with Laura, probably about Snowden-related things, they probably thought there was a good chance of some of the archive being present in the electronics.
They've been embarrassed too many times, making statements, later contradicted by conflicting data from the trove.
They wanted eyes on. Only rationale that makes sense.
On the intimidation front, they had to know it would have the opposite effect; not unpredictable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
epic backfire
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08/19/20090924-snowden-leak-journalist-britain-will-r egret-detaining-partner-at-airport?lite
I don't think this could've backfired worse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: epic backfire
They really screwed up this time, maybe after this UK authorities will be a little more wary of following USG 'suggestions'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They took his *game consoles*?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right.....
/S
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not in my name
Thank you for your email. I do wish to ensure that the UK upholds democratic values and champions freedom.
Before reaching a conclusion on the detention of Mr Miranda at Heathrow I wish to hear the police explanation for their actions. As I understand it from press accounts, this was not a matter authorised by Ministers, but an operational matter for the police themselves. I assume they believe they had the relevant powers and had reason to take this action.
The Home Office have said: “If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.”
As an MP I need more information before I can come to a conclusion on the use of existing powers in this way. I gather from what has been said so far that Mr Miranda was stopped to be asked about material he was carrying with him. Parliament should be reviewing the anti terrorism legislation soon, and this case may well be a part of that consideration, as we may anyway wish to modify the law in the direction of giving more safeguards to individuals when asked to help the police with their enquiries.
Best Wishes,
The Rt Hon John Redwood MP
Member of Parliament for Wokingham
[ link to this | view in chronology ]