MP Keith Vaz: If Anti-Terrorist Law Is Going To Be Abused To Detain Non-Terrorists, We Should At Least Be Upfront About It
from the a-strongly-worded-statement-that-defers-to-police-officials'-judgement dept
The news about Glenn Greenwald's partner's nine-hour detention by UK officials at Heathrow Airport continues to reverberate around the world. Back at home in the UK, even entrenched government officials are stating their shock at this abuse of so-called "anti-terrorism" laws.
Keith Vaz, head of the Home Office Select Affairs Committee, expressed his concern over the detention of David Miranda and has promised to seek "clarification."
Keith Vaz called the detention of Miranda "extraordinary" and said he would be writing immediately to police to request information about why Miranda was held under anti-terrorism laws when there appeared to be little evidence that he was involved in terrorism.[I'm fairly sure the police have phones, especially the top-ranking ones who have desks and offices and everything...]
"It is an extraordinary twist to a very complicated story," Vaz told BBC Radio 4's Today programme on Monday. "Of course it is right that the police and security services should question people if they have concerns or the basis of any concerns about what they are doing in the United Kingdom. What needs to happen pretty rapidly is we need to establish the full facts – now you have a complaint from Mr Greenwald and the Brazilian government. They indeed have said they are concerned at the use of terrorism legislation for something that does not appear to relate to terrorism, so it needs to be clarified, and clarified quickly."There's not much to clarify. This was nothing more than the somewhat indirect government intimidation of Glenn Greenwald. The officials held Miranda for 8 hours and 55 minutes, just under the maximum permitted 9-hour mark. Then they seized all of his electronics.
It's another abuse of anti-terrorism laws, which seem to be the kinds of laws that are just there to be abused. Vaz should try to get to the bottom of this, but writing angry letters simply grants police officials more time to diffuse the outrage and work on their spin. And Vaz should be more careful about appearing tough on anti-terrorism law abuse. His past suggests that he's more than willing to lock up terrorism suspects without charge and has twice sought extensions to the current 28-day detention limit in the UK.
Vaz appears to view the law as impeccable and the Heathrow incident as an anomaly. But this is just one incident that has triggered worldwide reaction. There are probably more where that came from, but until it happens to someone notable, the abuse goes unnoticed.
Vaz also stated he was unfamiliar with the electronics seizure policy, which seems either sad or unlikely (depending on your point of view) considering his involvement with the Home Office, which oversees counter-terrorism activities and policies. This policy is hardly a secret, having been covered here and elsewhere less than a month ago.
In addition to allowing for the seizure of terrorist-related electronics, the policy also allows officials to download data and retain it indefinitely. And like every bad anti-terrorism law or policy here in the US, it's all supposedly subjected to rigorous oversight by officials like the Chairman of Home Affairs Select Committee, who has apparently never heard of it.
Vaz had more to say on the subject, but by the time he's done, it almost sounds as if he's talked himself into agreeing with police officials, despite not hearing their rationale for Miranda's detention.
"What is extraordinary is they knew he was the partner [of Greenwald] and therefore it is clear not only people who are directly involved are being sought but also the partners of those involved," he said. "Bearing in mind it is a new use of terrorism legislation to detain someone in these circumstances [...] I'm certainly interested in knowing, so I will write to the police to ask for the justification of the use of terrorism legislation – they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. But if we are going to use the act in this way ... then at least we need to know so everyone is prepared."So... if officials are going to abuse a law, they should at least be upfront about it? Vaz started out strong, but by the end, he's basically ceded the argument to the police. It almost has the appearance of internal dialog that was mistakenly made public. Vaz is first outraged but then thinks it through, finally arriving at the conclusion that the UK would be best served by a bold new era of transparent abuse. I guess if you can't beat 'em, tell them you're going to start beating them. And then commence with the beatings.
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: anti-terror laws, david miranda, glenn greenwald, heathrow, keith vaz, uk
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"at least we need to know so everyone is prepared."
Oh, minion! In an otherwise good piece, here you're just SILLY as everyone (else) knows that official queries are always made in writing: "[I'm fairly sure the police have phones, especially the top-ranking ones who have desks and offices and everything...]"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "at least we need to know so everyone is prepared."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't know where politicians get their dictionaries. To me clarification isn't defined as future corner offices and promotions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: html error
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It means "well, I should put more attention on how this works in the media."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sadly, the UK government is nothing more than America's poodle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please Please Please
I would just LOVE to see what the little evidence of terrorism is. Show us so we can finally see what it looks like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please Please Please
Now, you and I may realise that detaining someone under anti terrorism laws on that basis is ludicrous but, sadly, the UK authorities lack such sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please Please Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i read earlier that the UK had informed the USA of what it was going to do before hand. i bet the USA had a big hand in what happened anyway. i think the UK needs to be a bit careful before it drops itself as far in the crap as the USA has already. what the UK is overlooking is that if it should happen, no one is going to bail out 'little old England'! and if the UK had nothing to hide, it would have nothing to fear. more bullshit, i think! it doesn't pull stunts like this or destroy electronic equipment, including macbooks, from what i read, either! it's seems as if those responsible have the opinion that any information they want to destroy is only on those pieces of equipment with no backups anywhere else. duh!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WRONG! Anti terrorist laws should have anti abuse protections built in.
He may as well say "We are going to detain you without cause and without regard for your rights but we promise to to be open and honest about it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Second, it's traditional for a response to an enquiry to use the same method; if he sends a letter, it's expected that a letter will be sent in return. That means a hard copy with someone's signature on it, so that everyone will know exactly what was said.
[ 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 ]
Quote:
Yay! write a harsh letter admonishing the armed thugs commanded by others, that will show them.
LoL
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gentleman, we found the true identity of one of our trolls. Ahem.
In a more serious note, the only way this will end will be severe civil unrest. Other than that, terrorists have won epically.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole 'mastering the internet' was done by New Labour, Vaz's party, the laws that would have made it legal were introduced by Jacqui Smith, with support from Vaz, and rejected by the voters who kicked his party out. They just did the mass surveillance anyway.
I don't think Cameron is in charge at this point in time, General Alexander, the NSA chief, seems to give the orders here in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]