The furor is growing. News that David Miranda, partner of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who did the series of interviews with whistleblower-leaker Edward Snowden, was held for 9 hours under Great Britain’s terrorism act has set off an international and blogosphere firestorm.

The questions started flowing immediately: was this payback for all the information Russia’s newest resident Snowden revealed about NSA’s massive surveillance programs? Was really the British government acting alone? Much of this right now seems to involve assumptions stemming from the pre-existing political conditions of those asking them. But sooner or later a full account — especially in this story — will come out.

The New York Times:

Mr. Miranda, Mr. Greenwald said, was told that he was being detained under Section 7 of the British Terrorism Act, which allows the authorities to detain someone for up to nine hours for questioning and to conduct a search of personal items, often without a lawyer, to determine possible ties to terrorism. More than 97 percent of people stopped under the provision are questioned for under an hour, according to the British government.

“What’s amazing is this law, called the Terrorism Act, gives them a right to detain and question you about your activities with a terrorist organization or your possible involvement in or knowledge of a terrorism plot,” Mr. Greenwald said. “The only thing they were interested in was N.S.A. documents and what I was doing with Laura Poitras. It’s a total abuse of the law.” He added: “This is obviously a serious, radical escalation of what they are doing. He is my partner. He is not even a journalist.”

London’s Metropolitan Police Service, which had jurisdiction over the case, said in a statement that Mr. Miranda had been lawfully detained under the Terrorism Act and later released, without going into detail. “Holding and properly using intelligence gained from such stops is a key part of fighting crime, pursuing offenders and protecting the public,” the statement said.

AND:

Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.

A spokesman for the British Foreign Ministry said the episode was a “police matter” and would provide no further comment. Civil rights groups in Britain have criticized Section 7 of the Terrorism Act, accusing the authorities of using the provision to arbitrarily stop and detain travelers, particularly Muslims. The British Home Office has said it is reviewing the provision in an effort to address the concerns.

A lawyer for The Guardian in London was working on trying to understand what had happened, as were foreign-affairs officials for Brazil both in that country and in London, Mr. Greenwald said. He said that he received a call from the Brazilian foreign minister about 40 minutes after alerting the Brazilian government, and that the Brazilian authorities were outraged.

SOME BLOG REACTION:
—Andrew Sullivan:

Readers know I have been grappling for a while with the vexing question of the balance between the surveillance state and the threat of Jihadist terrorism. When the NSA leaks burst onto the scene, I was skeptical of many of the large claims made by civil libertarians and queasily sympathetic to a program that relied on meta-data alone, as long as it was transparent, had Congressional buy-in, did not accidentally expose innocent civilians to grotesque privacy loss, and was watched by a strong FISA court.

Since then, I’ve watched the debate closely and almost all the checks I supported have been proven illusory. The spying is vastly more extensive than anyone fully comprehended before; the FISA court has been revealed as toothless and crippled; and many civilians have had their privacy accidentally violated over 3000 times. The president, in defending the indefensible, has damaged himself and his core reputation for honesty and candor. These cumulative revelations have exposed this program as, at a minimum, dangerous to core liberties and vulnerable to rank abuse. I’ve found myself moving further and further to Glenn’s position.

What has kept me from embracing it entirely has been the absence of any real proof than any deliberate abuse has taken place and arguments that it has helped prevent terror attacks. This may be too forgiving a standard. If a system is ripe for abuse, history tells us the only question is not if such abuse will occur, but when. So it is a strange and awful irony that the Coalition government in Britain has today clinched the case for Glenn.

And further down:

In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.

You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed. You have broken the trust that enables any such legislation to survive in a democracy. By so doing, you have attacked British democracy itself. What on earth do you have to say for yourself? And were you, in any way, encouraged by the US administration to do such a thing?

—Charles Johnson:

That’s correct — Glenn Greenwald’s partner was helping Greenwald and Laura Poitras exchange documents stolen by Edward Snowden. He was basically a mule.

And note: Mr. Miranda is not a journalist, and has no journalistic protections, according to Glenn Greenwald

–-John Cole:

Don’t you feel safer knowing that a reporter’s partner has had his Playstation Pro confiscated? Of course, this is not surprising at all, and what governments do when people act up- they harass them.

Why does freedom taste like fascism these days?
..

—Booman:

Think about what the law is in Britain, what it is here, and what it should be. People seem to be just taking up sides depending on whether they primarily dislike intrusive surveillance or they primarily dislike self-righteous people who do shoddy reporting.

People leak to journalists all the time and those journalists are supposed to be able to store the information and move through airports. But this is a much different set of circumstances. Mr. Miranda isn’t a journalist. He merely agreed to be a courier for a newspaper. Their little operation was sniffed out and it’s a bit complicated to sort out.

Using a terrorism statute seems ridiculous. But I can envision some other statute that would be perfectly reasonable. For example, a statute that says people can be stopped if there is a reasonable suspicion that they are part of a conspiracy to disseminate classified information would fit the bill. The complicating factor is how to treat a contract agent of a journalistic enterprise.

If the government knows that someone is about to leak classified information to a reporter, they can intercept that person and detain them. But what if the reporter hires a courier to bring him the information? I think it’s obvious that the courier can be detained too.

But, still, the use of a terrorism statute is a bit much.

—Marc Ambinder at The Week:

Greenwald is doing real journalism. If extra protections are afforded, they are afforded to him. If extra scrutiny is warranted, he should get it. I know the Snowden case is a boundary case, that it is of an echelon that other leak cases are not and that there are real first amendment equities involved. I also know that the government takes leaks of this magnitude — and considers the totality of what’s been leaked and what precedents it sets, not just the stuff we like (the U.S. stuff), but everything — terribly seriously. As all governments do, and have done, and will do. A separation between spouse and source is a foundational principle of how reporters approach complicated stories involving secrets and classified information. IF you do choose to involve your spouse, or you and your spouse work together, then you cannot reasonably complain that your partner was harassed for no reason whatsoever. Decisions have consequences.

But: A nine-hour detention based on a sketchy counter-terrorism statute is absurd. It would be easy enough to detain Miranda, explain why, be polite, confiscate his electronics, and then let him go. That should take less than an hour. And in this case, with the world watching, a velvet glove approach is called before because public opinion about the Snowden secrecy breach absolutely matters (whether it should or not) and will influence the disposition of his case and the precedents that are set.

The harassment that Poitras is subjected to every time she tries to cross a border is also ridiculous and a violation of her first amendment rights. She seems to have been watch-listed erroneously and the powers that be refuse to clear her, even though there is no evidence that she ever did anything outside the orbit of documentary journalism. THAT is a real scandal.

—Allahpundit:

As with many aspects of the Snowden/NSA story, the truth here is likely to be a little more nuanced than first impressions allow. Even if Miranda has been involved in moving materials, though, the detention in this case only underscores the Big Brother-ish aspects of the scandal, and hardly gives anyone confidence in the self-limiting imuplses of those who wield enormous power — even when they have a legitimate reason to wield it.

—The Verge:

In the wake of Miranda’s detention, critics have demanded answers from the British government. Greenwald has kept a running list of responses, including calls for reform within the government. Home Affairs select committee chairman Keith Vaz has asked police for an account of the event, asking whether the law was being applied inappropriately. “It certainly is a surprise to me, as someone who was in parliament when this act was passed, that it can be used in circumstances that don’t relate in any way to terrorism.”

Labour Party shadow home secretary Yvette Cooper also asked for more details about the facts surrounding Miranda’s case. “Any suggestion that terror powers are being misused must be investigated and clarified urgently,” she said. So far, the UK government has confirmed that Miranda was stopped, but it’s declined to issue further comment. Greenwald himself has called the detention an attempt at “intimidation and bullying,” with no ties to a possible terrorist investigation. The government of Brazil, where Miranda holds citizenship, said the stop was conducted “without justification.” And David Anderson, the UK’s independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, has urged Parliament to consider adding more safeguards to the law, though he too has asked for a full briefing on the case.

—The Huffington Post:

The detention of Glenn Greenwald’s partner at Heathrow airport in London has turned into a full-blown international political issue.

David Miranda was held for nine hours under the UK’s controversial Terrorism Act. He was returning from Berlin, where the Guardian had paid for him to travel to both give and receive documents from Laura Poitras, who has been working with the paper and Greenwald on their continuing series of stories based on the leaks from Edward Snowden. Miranda was not allowed a lawyer during the time he was being held. Police confiscated his laptop and other electronic equipment, including the thumb drive with the documents from Poitras.

The Daily Mail posted pictures on Monday showing Miranda returning to Brazil, where Greeenwald met him at the airport.

The Brazilian government issued a statement saying, in part, “This measure is without justification since it involves an individual against whom there are no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation. The Brazilian Government expects that incidents such as the one that happened to the Brazilian citizen today do not repeat.”

The detention led to outrage from many journalists..

–-National Review:

I’m not sure why Greenwald thinks his role as a journalist immunizes his partner from prosectuion when he’s caught helping Greenwald smuggle illegally obtained documents out of Germany and to Greenwald in Brazil. And Greenwald knew he was doing something wrong or else he would have had Poitras simply e-mail him the docs.

—Unqualified Offerings:

But remember, folks, the US and UK governments are the good guys. They murder Muslims around the world, they invade countries and trash them, they intimidate journalists, they indiscriminately spy on their citizens, but all of this is for the sake of freedom. If they didn’t do this, something bad might happen!

—Digby:

I realize that Glenn Greenwald and Edward Snowden rub many of you the wrong way. But if you care about civil liberties then you should really work on getting over that and start looking at the big picture here. Rousting journalists’ family members under terrorism laws is a bad thing, even if they were returning home after visiting … another journalist. Surely, anyone can see why there might be a problem with that, right?

–-No More Mister Nice Blog:

However, it should be noted that Miranda was clearly traveling as Greenwald’s work partner, not just his life partner…

don’t know where to draw the line on the tension between press freedom and national security — governments understandably want to protect national security secrets, but citizens in allegedly free countries ought to be able to know what’s being done to them. On the other hand, what Greenwald, Poitras, and Co. are doing isn’t terrorism. It isn’t aiding and abetting terrorism. We can see that from what’s been revealed.

You have a reasonable suspicion that Miranda has stolen national security secrets? Get a damn warrant. Arrest him in a conventional way. Allow him legal counsel. Act like a country where people actually are free.

A CROSS SECTION OF TWEETS:

Pigs: UK authorities detain @ggreenwald's partner for 9 hours & confiscate electronics under Terrorism Act! http://t.co/Yt7vNRO0fY

— Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) August 18, 2013

JOE GANDELMAN, Editor-In-Chief

Joe Gandelman is a former fulltime journalist who freelanced in India, Spain, Bangladesh and Cypress writing for publications such as the Christian Science Monitor and Newsweek. He also did radio reports from Madrid for NPR’s All Things Considered. He has worked on two U.S. newspapers and quit the news biz in 1990 to go into entertainment. He also has written for The Week and several online publications, did a column for Cagle Cartoons Syndicate and has appeared on CNN.

themoderatevoice.com/