# Is Glenn Greenwald's partner a terrorist? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 19, 2013, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640 "2013-08-19T14:15:04Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/81 "2013-08-20T13:03:09Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > I’ve got no time for your ‘my side, my side’ legal bullshittery. Go derail some other discussion. > > EDITED to add: > > Yet again I’m deeply unimpressed by the number of people thinking it’s okay to harass and intimidate journalists by abusing anti-terrorist legislation. I hope I see none of you pounding your ‘USA,USA!’ chests in other threads about ‘freedom’ because you’ve forfeited the right. I’m not particularly sorry that your inability to frame an argument about a law and its application has you so frustrated, and neither am I willing to stop discussing it. You’re just going to have to deal. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/82 "2013-08-20T13:20:17Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m not particularly sorry that your inability to frame an argument about a law and its application has you so frustrated, and neither am I willing to stop discussing it. You’re just going to have to deal. Derail away then. I’m sure people will treat your contributions with all the due consideration they generally merit. ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 1:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/83 "2013-08-20T13:20:49Z")
Here’s an analysis by UK lawyer David Allen Green (aka Jack of Kent). As with most legal things, it’s all just word soup to me, but hopefully it’ll be interesting to some: [http://jackofkent.com/2013/08/nine-hours-in-the-life-of-david-miranda/](http://jackofkent.com/2013/08/nine-hours-in-the-life-of-david-miranda/) ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/84 "2013-08-20T14:37:21Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > Here’s an analysis by UK lawyer David Allen Green (aka Jack of Kent). As with most legal things, it’s all just word soup to me, but hopefully it’ll be interesting to some: > > [http://jackofkent.com/2013/08/nine-hours-in-the-life-of-david-miranda/](http://jackofkent.com/2013/08/nine-hours-in-the-life-of-david-miranda/) Boiled down, he’s saying that the purpose of Section 7, the law under which Miranda was detained and questioned, is to determine whether a particular person is a terrorism risk. He then says that the fact that British authorities tipped off the US in advance to their intention to detain Miranda indicates that they knew beforehand exactly who he was, which meant that they were already capable of determining whether or not he was a terrorism risk. There was thus no need to question and detain him under Section 7. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/85 "2013-08-20T15:01:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > **Ascenray** : > > Please read this post, and tell me if it’s about what the law is or what the law should be: Seriously? Every single word after the quote box is an expression of opinion or values or aspiration. There’s not one word in there that can reasonably taken to be meant to be a technical description of the law. That’s why there’s so much frustration in this exchange. ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/86 "2013-08-20T15:14:07Z")
I thought this was an outrage at first, now I’m not so sure after having read more. The facts, as near as I can ascertain, are: [ul] [li]The Guardian are in possession of classified material likely gained from British security service work. This is fine if the Guardian have a legitimate need for those files whilst working in the public interest (e.g. to disclose illegal operations on the part of the SIS) and as long as the Guardian are responsible in handling them (e.g. not disclosing the names and details of British informants to the public).[/li][li]Instead, the Guardian seems happy to have an individual not in any sort of formal relationship with the Guardian be in possession of those files.[/li][li]Said individual is not only not formally affiliated with the Guardian, being merely the spouse of one of its journalists, but then attempts to fly those files halfway across the world to a potentially hostile third country in Brazil, where they can quite easily be “acquired” by the Brazilian security services to the detriment of the UK’s national interest.[/li][/ul] Now, it’s quite easy to separate the issue of whether the Guardian has a legitimate interest in possessing those files, as a newspaper working in the public interest, should they be used responsibly, from the fact that the Guardian are complete fucking amateurs who are allowing gigabytes of classified information containing who knows what to be passed onto individuals with no formal affiliation with the newspaper, proceeding to fly the files out of the country into countries with at best a lukewarm relationship with the UK. As for whether he was a terrorist or not. As far as I can see from the JackOfKent post above lawyers are arguing over whether the stop was legal. Some say yes, some say no. Who knows? ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/87 "2013-08-20T15:15:41Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Boiled down, he’s saying that the purpose of Section 7, the law under which Miranda was detained and questioned, is to determine whether a particular person is a terrorism risk. He then says that the fact that British authorities tipped off the US in advance to their intention to detain Miranda indicates that they knew beforehand exactly who he was, which meant that they were already capable of determining whether or not he was a terrorism risk. There was thus no need to question and detain him under Section 7. Read the comments under the post. It’s not that simple. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 3:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/88 "2013-08-20T15:17:22Z")
> [@PBear42](#): > > With respect, I think this is a misreading. You quoted Section 2(4) of [Schedule 7](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7) (your link). It says an officer initiating the procedure doesn’t need grounds for suspecting the person of interest is a terrorist. The point of the procedure, though, very definitely is to establish whether he is one. See Section 2(1): “An examining officer may question a person to whom this paragraph applies for the purpose of determining whether he appears to be a person falling within section 40(1)(b).” Notably, [section 40(1)(b)](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/40) of the Terrorism Act of 2000 defines a terrorist as “a person who … is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” Terrorism is defined in [Section 1](http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/section/1) of the Act and includes several things, but possession of classified information isn’t one of them. You may be right, but your interpretation makes the portion I quoted a nullity: > [@](#): > > An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b). ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 3:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/89 "2013-08-20T15:18:56Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Boiled down, he’s saying that the purpose of Section 7, the law under which Miranda was detained and questioned, is to determine whether a particular person is a terrorism risk. He then says that the fact that British authorities tipped off the US in advance to their intention to detain Miranda indicates that they knew beforehand exactly who he was, which meant that they were already capable of determining whether or not he was a terrorism risk. There was thus no need to question and detain him under Section 7. That sounds like a Catch-22. “If there is reason to question someone under Section 7, then there is no reason to question them under Section 7.” ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 3:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/90 "2013-08-20T15:37:38Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Read the comments under the post. It’s not that simple. I’m sure. I was just trying to relate what the blogger himself was saying. > [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That sounds like a Catch-22. “If there is reason to question someone under Section 7, then there is no reason to question them under Section 7.” I thought that at first too, but now I’ve changed my mind. I see him as saying that the Section 7 powers were intended only for situations of uncertainty, and this just wasn’t one such. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 4:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/91 "2013-08-20T16:08:34Z")
[quote=“Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party, post:86, topic:666640”] I thought this was an outrage at first, now I’m not so sure after having read more. The facts, as near as I can ascertain, are: [LIST] [li]The Guardian are in possession of classified material likely gained from British security service work.[/li][/QUOTE] No. Snowden worked for the NSA. He and the Guardian have information that whistleblows on the unprecedented and the unsuspected scope of programs of highly questionable legality that raises huge public interest issues. Even Obama has conceded this. This is not a national security issue, it is a government embarassment issue. And IMO the public interest in the disclosure of this information far outweighs any theoretical and completely unproven claim that in some magic way will aid terrorists if disclosed. This information exists in multiple formats in multiple locations as Rusbringer has said - particularly in the USA where unlike the UK there can be no prior restraint against publication. The pretence that they had to sieze it in case it came into terrorist hands is just that - a pretence. Are they saying he was going to give it to terrorists (even if for the moment we accept the assertion he was carry journalistic material originating from Snowden) so they had to detain him and take his stuff? Are they saying the risk was terrorists would seize it from him en-route? Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks. Seizing (alleged) copies of information through an outrageous abuse of terrorist legislation achieved nothing. This was intimidation aimed at journalists revealing things 2 governments want to keep hidden from their own publics and their own legislatures. This legislation was intended to allow police to question someone to determine if he was a terrorist. They already knew he was not. Stop making excuses for them with fanciful mud slinging. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/92 "2013-08-20T16:22:15Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > That sounds like a Catch-22. “If there is reason to question someone under Section 7, then there is no reason to question them under Section 7.” If there’s actual evidence that he’s a terrorist, there are other laws under which he can be detained, and section 7 is not appropriate. If the government knows he’s not a terrorist, then there’s no reason to detain him and section 7 is not appropriate. Section 7 is specifically supposed to be used in the case of uncertainty. ---
**Author:** ![ctnguy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@ctnguy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ctnguy)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/93 "2013-08-20T16:28:00Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Now, it’s quite easy to separate the issue of whether the Guardian has a legitimate interest in possessing those files, as a newspaper working in the public interest, should they be used responsibly, from the fact that the Guardian are complete fucking amateurs who are allowing gigabytes of classified information containing who knows what to be passed onto individuals with no formal affiliation with the newspaper, proceeding to fly the files out of the country into countries with at best a lukewarm relationship with the UK. It has now been revealed that the UK security services destroyed the Guardian’s copy of the Snowden information in the UK. So it would seem that the only way for the Guardian to carry out its work in the public interest is indeed for it to transport that information to a country outside the reach of the US/UK security apparatus. Perhaps if they didn’t want the info to be removed from the UK, they shouldn’t have come in like thugs and smashed up the Guardian’s hard drives. Aside from which, as far as I can see it’s not even been stated that Miranda was carrying any of the Snowden information. ---
**Author:** ![tagos](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@tagos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tagos)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/94 "2013-08-20T16:28:25Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > If there’s actual evidence that he’s a terrorist, there are other laws under which he can be detained, and section 7 is not appropriate. If the government knows he’s not a terrorist, then there’s no reason to detain him and section 7 is not appropriate. Section 7 is specifically supposed to be used in the case of uncertainty. Yes. We have laws covering stolen information. But if they arrested and charged him then legal protections kick in. This approach was used precisely because it offers the suspect no access to their own lawyer and no right of silence. This is abuse of pwer. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/95 "2013-08-20T16:42:15Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > There’s a trial regarding the redistribution of classified documents: [New York Times Co. v. United States](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Times_Co._v._United_States). It seems like a catch 22 to me. It’s likely the data dump contains sensitive information and possession of it would be a crime. Unlike the 1971 trial there is certainly a great deal more information involved. So if the person who took the information can be arrested and tried then by extension there is the potential to do the same thing to anyone who conspires to distribute it. The middle ground is the press. It’s within their legal ability to expose criminal activity. That middle ground certainly has a gray area to it. Can someone be detained for possessing material that doesn’t belong to them and have said material confiscated? ---
**Author:** ![Baron\_Greenback](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/baron_greenback/32/48_2.png) [@Baron\_Greenback](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Baron_Greenback)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/96 "2013-08-20T16:42:41Z")
> [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](#): > > Read the comments under the post. It’s not that simple. The comments lead me to believe that this a badly-drawn law with way too wide a scope. Agree? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/97 "2013-08-20T17:22:17Z")
> [@ctnguy](#): > > It has now been revealed that the UK security services destroyed the Guardian’s copy of the Snowden information in the UK. So it would seem that the only way for the Guardian to carry out its work in the public interest is indeed for it to transport that information to a country outside the reach of the US/UK security apparatus. So, the lesson to be learned from the UK security services’ action is that a whistleblower should immediately spread copies of all information he acquires far and wide, rather than risk having it destroyed while he takes time to carefully separate necessary disclosures from legitimate secrets. Jolly good show, chaps! ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 5:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/98 "2013-08-20T17:56:56Z")
> [@Baron\_Greenback](#): > > The comments lead me to believe that this a badly-drawn law with way too wide a scope. Agree? Yeah as it stands everybody likely falls under their definition of terrorism. I wonder if the courts have narrowed the interpretation? ---
**Author:** ![Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/cc9497/32.png) [@Capt.Ridley\_s\_Shooting\_Party](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Capt.Ridley_s_Shooting_Party)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/99 "2013-08-20T18:08:22Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > No. Snowden worked for the NSA. He and the Guardian have information that whistleblows on the unprecedented and the unsuspected scope of programs of highly questionable legality that raises huge public interest issues. Even Obama has conceded this. > > This is not a national security issue, it is a government embarassment issue. And IMO the public interest in the disclosure of this information far outweighs any theoretical and completely unproven claim that in some magic way will aid terrorists if disclosed. > > This information exists in multiple formats in multiple locations as Rusbringer has said - particularly in the USA where unlike the UK there can be no prior restraint against publication. > > The pretence that they had to sieze it in case it came into terrorist hands is just that - a pretence. Are they saying he was going to give it to terrorists (even if for the moment we accept the assertion he was carry journalistic material originating from Snowden) so they had to detain him and take his stuff? Are they saying the risk was terrorists would seize it from him en-route? > > Bollocks, bollocks and more bollocks. > > Seizing (alleged) copies of information through an outrageous abuse of terrorist legislation achieved nothing. > > This was intimidation aimed at journalists revealing things 2 governments want to keep hidden from their own publics and their own legislatures. > > This legislation was intended to allow police to question someone to determine if he was a terrorist. They already knew he was not. > > Stop making excuses for them with fanciful mud slinging. Kindly dismount your towering steed. Nobody disputes the Guardian has a public interest role in bringing Tempora and other programmes to light. Where we, tagos, diverge is over whether the press has a duty of care, even when handling classified information legitimately, in how undifferentiated classified information is handled. The Guardian apparently takes the position that gigabytes of data can be passed around to the partners of journalists and flown halfway around the world to Brazil. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2013, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640/100 "2013-08-20T18:42:06Z")
> [@tagos](#): > > Which makes it a classic abuse of power by the State. These laws were passed to give police powers to tackle terrorist threats. They were not intended an neither should thay be used as a tool to harass and intimidate journalists or to give the authorites the chance to question people outside of normal safeguards. > > This is simply a shocking abuse of power by this government and as the USA was informed beforehand of the intention, condoned at the highest levels of the UK Govt. At the very least the Home Secretary would have consented. > > [More info](http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction) > > > [@](#): > > > > Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000 allows the police to detain anyone at the UK’s borders without any requirement to show probable cause and hold them for up to nine hours, without seeking further justification. The detainee must respond to any questions, regardless of whether a lawyer is present and there is no automatic provision of a lawyer. It is a criminal offence for the detainee to refuse to answer questions - regardless of the grounds for that refusal or otherwise fully cooperate with the police. > > > > According to the advice published by the Association of Chief Police Officers’, Schedule 7 **should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose.** > > > > A similarly over-broad and vague section of the Terrorism Act 2000 which allowed stop and search without any grounds was held to be unlawful by the European Court of Human Rights in 2010. Section 44 - as it was known - violated Article 8 of the European Charter of Human Rights which protects privacy. (bolding mine) Isn’t it reasonable to conclude that law could justifiably be used to assess _the degree_ of terrorist threat a person represents or the information he is holding)? Let’s say that some of the files Snowden stole cover steps the U.S., and possibly others, are taking or plan to take in order to combat terrorism. If so, then wouldn’t those papers be valuable to terrorists in helping them? And wouldn’t the questioning of Miranda then be justified? Also, I’m not a lawyer, but when did it become okay for a person to possess stolen goods. What right does Miranda have to possess papers that were stolen? Finally, regarding the Pentagon Papers. It is easier to conclude that those documents, which covered _past_ activity could be characterized to merely "embarrass the government. Since we’re not sure exactly all that Snowden stole, we really can’t assume that there isn’t anything there that would be detrimental to, say, the current and future efforts to fight terrorism. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-glenn-greenwalds-partner-a-terrorist/666640.md?page=6)