Outcry over detention of Glenn Greenwald's partner under terrorism legislation
By Robert Stevens
20 August 2013
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/08/20/mira-a20.html
David Miranda: 'They said I would be put in jail if I didn't co-operate'
Partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald gives his first
interview on nine-hour interrogation at Heathrow airport
Jonathan Watts in Rio de Janeiro
The Guardian, Monday 19 August 2013
<http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow>
Glenn Greenwald Defiantly Hints of More Illegal Spying Revelations
After Maladroit US/UK Effort to Intimidate Him
Monday, 19 August 2013 16:39
<http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/18149-gleen-greenwald-defiantly-hints-of-more-illegal-spying-revelations-after-maladroit-us-uk-effort-to-intimidate-him>
Greenwald partner sues Home Office as UK defends 'Miranda op'
Published time: August 20, 2013
http://rt.com/news/greenwald-miranda-sues-uk-739/
--0--
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35913.htm
Journalism Under Threat:
The Day Agents Came and Smashed Our Hard Drives
By Alan Rusbridger
Guardian Editor
David Miranda, schedule 7 and the danger that all reporters now face
As the events in a Heathrow transit lounge - and the Guardian offices
- have shown, the threat to journalism is real and growing
August 20, 2013 "Information Clearing House - "The Guardian" - In a
private viewing cinema in Soho last week I caught myself letting fly
with a four-letter expletive at Bill Keller, the former executive
editor of the New York Times. It was a confusing moment. The man who
was pretending to be me - thanking Keller for "not giving a shit" -
used to be Malcolm Tucker, a foul-mouthed Scottish spin doctor who
will soon be a 1,000-year-old time lord. And Keller will correct me,
but I don't remember ever swearing at him. I do remember saying
something to the effect of "we have the thumb drive, you have the
first amendment".
The fictional moment occurs at the beginning of the DreamWorks film
about WikiLeaks, The Fifth Estate, due for release next month. Peter
Capaldi is, I can report, a very plausible Guardian editor.
This real-life exchange with Keller happened just after we took
possession of the first tranche of WikiLeaks documents in 2010. I
strongly suspected that our ability to research and publish anything
to do with this trove of secret material would be severely
constrained in the UK. America, for all its own problems with media
laws and whistleblowers, at least has press freedom enshrined in a
written constitution. It is also, I hope, unthinkable that any US
government would attempt prior restraint against a news organisation
planning to publish material that informed an important public
debate, however troublesome or embarrassing.
On Sunday morning David Miranda, the partner of Guardian columnist
Glenn Greenwald, was detained as he was passing through Heathrow
airport on his way back to Rio de Janeiro, where the couple live.
Greenwald is the reporter who has broken most of the stories about
state surveillance based on the leaks from the former NSA contractor
Edward Snowden. Greenwald's work has undoubtedly been troublesome and
embarrassing for western governments. But, as the debate in America
and Europe has shown, there is considerable public interest in what
his stories have revealed about the right balance between security,
civil liberties, freedom of speech and privacy. He has raised acutely
disturbing questions about the oversight of intelligence; about the
use of closed courts; about the cosy and secret relationship between
government and vast corporations; and about the extent to which
millions of citizens now routinely have their communications
intercepted, collected, analysed and stored.
In this work he is regularly helped by David Miranda. Miranda is not
a journalist, but he still plays a valuable role in helping his
partner do his journalistic work. Greenwald has his plate full
reading and analysing the Snowden material, writing, and handling
media and social media requests from around the world. He can
certainly use this back-up. That work is immensely complicated by the
certainty that it would be highly unadvisable for Greenwald (or any
other journalist) to regard any electronic means of communication as
safe. The Guardian's work on the Snowden story has involved many
individuals taking a huge number of flights in order to have
face-to-face meetings. Not good for the environment, but increasingly
the only way to operate. Soon we will be back to pen and paper.
Miranda was held for nine hours under schedule 7 of the UK's terror
laws, which give enormous discretion to stop, search and question
people who have no connection with "terror", as ordinarily
understood. Suspects have no right to legal representation and may
have their property confiscated for up to seven days. Under this
measure - uniquely crafted for ports and airport transit areas -
there are none of the checks and balances that apply once someone is
in Britain proper. There is no need to arrest or charge anyone and
there is no protection for journalists or their material. A transit
lounge in Heathrow is a dangerous place to be.
Miranda's professional status - much hand-wringing about whether or
not he's a proper "journalist - is largely irrelevant in these
circumstances. Increasingly, the question about who deserves
protection should be less "is this a journalist?" than "is the
publication of this material in the public interest?"
The detention of Miranda has rightly caused international dismay
because it feeds into a perception that the US and UK governments -
while claiming to welcome the debate around state surveillance
started by Snowden - are also intent on stemming the tide of leaks
and on pursuing the whistleblower with a vengeance. That perception
is right. Here follows a little background on the considerable
obstacles being placed in the way of informing the public about what
the intelligence agencies, governments and corporations are up to.
A little over two months ago I was contacted by a very senior
government official claiming to represent the views of the prime
minister. There followed two meetings in which he demanded the return
or destruction of all the material we were working on. The tone was
steely, if cordial, but there was an implicit threat that others
within government and Whitehall favoured a far more draconian
approach.
The mood toughened just over a month ago, when I received a phone
call from the centre of government telling me: "You've had your fun.
Now we want the stuff back." There followed further meetings with
shadowy Whitehall figures. The demand was the same: hand the Snowden
material back or destroy it. I explained that we could not research
and report on this subject if we complied with this request. The man
from Whitehall looked mystified. "You've had your debate. There's no
need to write any more."
During one of these meetings I asked directly whether the government
would move to close down the Guardian's reporting through a legal
route - by going to court to force the surrender of the material on
which we were working. The official confirmed that, in the absence of
handover or destruction, this was indeed the government's intention.
Prior restraint, near impossible in the US, was now explicitly and
imminently on the table in the UK. But my experience over WikiLeaks -
the thumb drive and the first amendment - had already prepared me for
this moment. I explained to the man from Whitehall about the nature
of international collaborations and the way in which, these days,
media organisations could take advantage of the most permissive legal
environments. Bluntly, we did not have to do our reporting from
London. Already most of the NSA stories were being reported and
edited out of New York. And had it occurred to him that Greenwald
lived in Brazil?
The man was unmoved. And so one of the more bizarre moments in the
Guardian's long history occurred - with two GCHQ security experts
overseeing the destruction of hard drives in the Guardian's basement
just to make sure there was nothing in the mangled bits of metal
which could possibly be of any interest to passing Chinese agents.
"We can call off the black helicopters," joked one as we swept up the
remains of a MacBook Pro.
Whitehall was satisfied, but it felt like a peculiarly pointless
piece of symbolism that understood nothing about the digital age. We
will continue to do patient, painstaking reporting on the Snowden
documents, we just won't do it in London. The seizure of Miranda's
laptop, phones, hard drives and camera will similarly have no effect
on Greenwald's work.
The state that is building such a formidable apparatus of
surveillance will do its best to prevent journalists from reporting
on it. Most journalists can see that. But I wonder how many have
truly understood the absolute threat to journalism implicit in the
idea of total surveillance, when or if it comes - and, increasingly,
it looks like "when".
We are not there yet, but it may not be long before it will be
impossible for journalists to have confidential sources. Most
reporting - indeed, most human life in 2013 - leaves too much of a
digital fingerprint. Those colleagues who denigrate Snowden or say
reporters should trust the state to know best (many of them in the
UK, oddly, on the right) may one day have a cruel awakening. One day
it will be their reporting, their cause, under attack. But at least
reporters now know to stay away from Heathrow transit lounges.
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel