...early indications suggest these may include the location of certain 'weapons of mass destruction' in the People's Republic Of Narnia and details of next year's X Factor judges line up
That misses the point. Nobody would object if he were treated like a suspected criminal and held under the due process of criminal law. It is the violation of his rights that is at issue. You can torture a person and gain information about guilt but that does not make the methods acceptable
If, and I do say if, he was carrying things that could undermine the safety of people, he forgoes many of his rights. He was detained for questioning for a period of time and made to hand over the things that now seem to contain classified documents. Not that serious for him really, but to suggest that criminals have more rights that victims seems to me to be just plain wrong. He has been to the High Court, but basically the police can continue to search his computer etc. with some restrictions. All a bit of speculation at present, but it does look as if there is quite a web of wrong doing here.
.. how is he a criminal? ... what exactly is his crime and, anyway, I thought we had a concept of innocent until proven guilty?
But was it HIS? computer? Was he just being used as a "mule" to smuggle this information to a country that it would be very difficult to control it's use? It is clear that MI5 were fully aware of this guy and that is why he was stopped, it was never a random event - hopefully thye truth will be revealed!
I do take the point OFH, but unless he was knowingly transporting a computer that he was aware contained classified information that has 'terrorism' potential, thereby implicating him as a 'terrorist' himself, then, categorically, he should not have been detained on the pretext that was used ...
I don't disagree with that Fosse, but then on the other hand....... We don't know what is on it, but as w_y says above, this was no random search.
Didn't he deny that it did contain such information? Rather than simply saying that it belonged to someone else & he had no idea what was on it - making such a denial would tend to suggest that he knew exactly what was on it...
Didn't he deny that it did contain such information? Rather than simply saying that it belonged to someone else & he had no idea what was on it - making such a denial would tend to suggest that he knew exactly what was on it...
Originally The Guardian complained, and was repeated on the BBC, that the hacks laptop contained "journalistic material" - I wonder what is?
Did anyone think it WAS a random search? Of course not. Is he and his boyfriend married; Did he pay for his own tickets; Whose PC is it; should he eat fish on a Friday - how many irrelevant questions can I ask? As it seems to be the currency of this site perhaps I should offer 10 rep points for each anybody can ask. The terrorism laws were brought in as a well over the top measure to safeguard us against the threat of terrorism. The abuse of that law will cause its use to be questioned and perhaps prevent it being used when it ought to be. That is not only bad but it is dangerous.. If you bring in a draconian measure you need to use it correctly and sparingly. That is what this debate is about. You use ordinary laws for ordinary things - this is potentially receiving stolen property and is covered perfectly by laws that do not deny anyone their basic human rights. The property that was or was not on this PC is undoubtedly in the hands of the Russian Government now thanks to Snowden so cannot represent a threat as serious as that. To me this is a really serious issue and of vast significance. Our security services must never be allowed to get above themselves. We must defend our freedom and that of our press (even if you do denigrate them with the slur "hacks")- if we do not, who will? There is a famous quotation that springs to mind Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps. Niemöller is perhaps best remembered for the quotation: Beware that you do not see your freedom eroded in small stages by those who claim to be defending you. If you do not defend another person's rights who will defend yours?
Here is a bit of an insight into the mind of the Brazilian. He is always trying to get something over on someone, get a lot for nothing and he thinks he is superior to everyone else, "I am the best. Not you or my country, me. I am the best!". What is quite amusing is the average Juan is not nearly as clever as he thinks he is and will generally get found out. David Miranda (to pick a newsworthy example), and you can see this in the way he presents himself, follows my sweeping generalisation very closely. If, as is being reported MI5 were watching him, because of his relationship to someone who was knowingly in posession of highly sensative material, he would have to be off with the pixies not to notice. And would have been better off flying back to Brasil in a manner that did not deliver him straight into the arms of the British security services. Before any of you start on me for being a bit nasty to the Brazilians; I lived there for a long time, my grandfather has been there for more than 60 years, I am married to one, more than half my family are of that nation, etc.
Interesting but surely irrelevant as he did not invoke the terrorism laws. Also was a plane not recently diverted and forced to land in Austria (not even on its path) as the security services thought Snowden was on board? These guys are not stupid and once he was on a journey they planned how to nab him .... and I do find it impossible to believe that you can sum up the collective mind of a Brazilian - or any other nationality. Are all English stiff upper lip?
Harry - you have chosen to turn my original slur on the rubbish media hacks of this country, which I do on a regular basis, into your own soapbox debate on human rights, on which subject you are clearly very passionate. Therefore if I continue to ask why these hacks are not asking highly relevant questions regarding this whole story, then those questions are highly relevant to my original point. I have not criticised your opinions on human rights in any way during this debate, in fact I have made no comment at all, but please do not tell me the questions I raise as irrelevant, because they are. It just happens that I am more interested in the detail of this whole story than I am whether this guy's human rights have been abused or not. Last night on 5-Live news, it was reported that a journalist in Sudan had received death threats as a result of his name appearing in some of the material leaked by Snowdon - who is caring about his rights?
I hate soapboxes so if I am on one I will get off and leave "my own" debate to others or it can wither. I thought I was contributing to a debate in which several people were participating. Too much time this week - better go back to work.
Harry although I am quite prepared and happy to know that you come from a different starting point to me, I really cannot agree with some of what you say. Only this week there have been reports of newspapers paying prison warders at Broadmoor for information about the sick inmates there. I suspect that although the prisoners in there are often people we would rather forget existed, they do have human rights to a degree of privacy. If they didn't have any rights then the press would not have to try and buy information about them. Phone tapping, computer hacking, all things that came out last year about the press, and rightly a number of the leaders in that industry have to face the courts to defend their actions. If the press showed that they were doing serious investigation, which they do from time to time and need support on those occasions, then we might be able to trust them, but far too often they are only looking these days for a cheap story that they think will sell newspapers. Let us not forget that in 2006 the then Prime Minister Tony Blair, wanted to hold suspects before charge for 90 days. 9 hours seems rather a small time to spend being questioned about what is on all of your bits of storage equipment. I really don't follow your argument that because Snowdon has let the Russians, probably correct but not fact, into the secrets on the computer etc, we should not be bothered. I cannot for the life of me believe that they will be passing the information on.
Harry having lived in south America and Europe for a long time, the last thing any of my hosts has ever thought of the British as is having a stiff upper lip. Arrogant war-mongering thugs who do the United States dirty work is probably nearer the mark as a generalisation. Until they understand our history and how we think as individuals it is a commom misconception. As to my generalisation about Brasilians, I have some very, very good friends from there, but you go and sit in a bar in São Paulo or Rio de Janeiro and you'll see what I mean. Not everyone is the same and the more educated, as individuals, are much less likely to behave like that.
It looks as if this conversation is drawing to a close, until more news is made public. One of the things that has been commented on from visitors, is the manner in which we conduct a debate here without resorting to abuse about individual posters and their views. Slightly better than some things you read elsewhere and something we should try to continue without fear.
