Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation

Post by DigitalTurk » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 8:31 AM UTC

rdl wrote: post #315

gsnedders wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try asserting any right to silence at the US border — you won't get far. If you are not a US national, I'd expect you to be refused entry (and as one is required to complete an ETSA prior to arrival, one is required to sign away any right to appeal of the decision of the border control staff).

Oh, I'm totally fine with people who are non-cooperative and non-citizens being denied entry. I'm a US Citizen, so I have an absolute right to re-enter the US without answering any questions (they do have a right to make sure I'm who I say I am, and that I'm not carrying any prohibited things in contravention of customs regulations, but that's it). I'm not sure how it works for transit. Also, if I were not a US citiz…

Post by antimagic » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 8:46 AM UTC

cabalamat wrote: post #349

jacquesm wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder from how high up this order came. After all, it's not like Greenwald is going to take this lying down and that's something that they could predict quite accurately ahead of time. To abuse these powers on the partner of the journalist that is reporting the abuses is the worst tactical mistake made by any government to date, short of the diversion of a diplomats plane. Taking into account that the UK law enfor…

> I wonder from how high up this order came. I doubt very much if the police would do this off their own bat. What motive would they have to do so? So it must have come at least from the Foreign Secretary, but more probably the Prime Minister. The UK government is currently a coalition. The minor partner, the Liberal Democrats, tend to take a slightly more pro civil liberties line than the two big parties. Did they k…

Post by pbreit » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 8:52 AM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #191

pbreit wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My sense from obama's recent remarks is that there is definitely some change under consideration as a result of the snowden revelations and greenwald's important involvement. So I disagree with you pretty strenuously. And I do think more people care about this than you think, both in the tech and non-tech worlds.

Obama is on the record saying that these changes under consideration have nothing whatsoever to do with Snowden, Greenwald or the leaks.

Post by snitko » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 9:19 AM UTC

chiph wrote: post #162

throwaway_yy2Di wrote: post #12

Greenwald just posted his own account: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m... At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000." D…

but would only identify himself by his number: 203654 Inspector Javert?

Post by Amadou » Mon, Aug 19, 2013, 10:02 AM UTC

andreyf wrote: post #350

Amadou wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, those two things aren't even in the same jurisdiction. But, you know that can go both ways. Maybe the caller was sympathetic to Miranda's situation but his hands were tied by the bureaucracy and all of his fellows who were less-than-sympathetic? By alerting Greenwald he let someone else without anything to lose take action. Maybe the reason he wouldn't give out his name is because he didn't want to face in…

I would be very surprised if what would clearly become a high-profile detainment wasn't choreographed ahead of time to the minute, the possible routes of questioning prepared, and the timing and contents of the phone call thought through and structures to elicit particular response. These are moves in a PR campaign of the utmost importance, not some random detention decided by a low-level bureaucrat.