Blog Archive

Monday, August 19, 2013

David Miranda detention: Labour demands review of anti-terror powers

Yvette Cooper's comments come after partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald was held for nine hours at Heathrow
Glen Greenwald walks with his partner, David Miranda in Rio de Janeiro's international airport
Glenn Greenwald (left) walks with his partner, David Miranda, in Rio de Janeiro's international airport on Monday. Photograph: Ricardo Moraes/Reuters
Labour has called for an urgent investigation into the use of anti-terror powers to detain David Miranda, the partner of a Guardian journalist who interviewedUS National Security Agency whistleblower Edward Snowden.
Yvette Cooper, the shadow home secretary, said ministers must find out whether anti-terror laws had been "misused", after Miranda was held for nine hours by authorities at Heathrow airport under the Terrorism Act.
His detention has caused "considerable consternation" and the Home Office must explain how this can be justified as appropriate and proportionate, she said.
Miranda is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, who has written a series of stories for the Guardian revealing mass surveillance programmes by the NSA. He was returning to their home in Rio de Janeiro when he was stopped at Heathrow and officials confiscated electronics equipment, including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles.
Cooper said public support for the schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act could be undermined if there is a perception it is not being used for the right purposes. "Any suggestion that terror powers are being misused must be investigated and clarified urgently," she said. "The public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse.
"The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, David Anderson, has already warned of the importance of using schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act appropriately and proportionately. The purpose of schedule 7 is to determine whether or not someone is involved in or associated with terror activity. The Home Office and police need to explain rapidly how they can justify using that purpose under the terrorism legislation to detain David Miranda for nine hours. This has caused considerable consternation and swift answers are needed.
"The police and security agencies rightly work hard to protect national security and prevent terrorism. But public confidence in security powers depends on them being used proportionately within the law, and also on having independent checks and balances in place to prevent misuse."
Her intervention comes after Brazil expressed "grave concern" about the detention of one of its citizens under anti-terror legislation. Its government said the detention of Miranda was without justification, as there are "no charges that can legitimate the use of that legislation". The Home Office has declined to comment, arguing it is a matter for Scotland Yard.
However, Keith Vaz, chairman of the House of Commons home affairs committee, said he would write to police asking them to explain the "extraordinary" use of anti-terror powers against the partner of a journalist. "Of course it is right that the police and security services should question people if they have concerns or the basis of any concerns about what they are doing in the United Kingdom," he told BBC Radio 4's Today programme.
"What needs to happen pretty rapidly is we need to establish the full facts – now you have a complaint from Mr Greenwald and the Brazilian government. They indeed have said they are concerned at the use of terrorism legislation for something that does not appear to relate to terrorism, so it needs to be clarified, and clarified quickly."
Vaz said he was not aware that personal property could be confiscated under the laws. "What is extraordinary is they knew he was the partner [of Greenwald] and therefore it is clear not only people who are directly involved are being sought but also the partners of those involved," he said.
"Bearing in mind it is a new use of terrorism legislation to detain someone in these circumstances ... I'm certainly interested in knowing, so I will write to the police to ask for the justification of the use of terrorism legislation – they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation. But if we are going to use the act in this way … then at least we need to know so everyone is prepared."
Scotland Yard has refused to be drawn on why Miranda was stopped using powers that enable police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports. "At 08:05 on Sunday 18 August, a 28-year-old man was detained at Heathrow airport under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. He was not arrested. He was subsequently released at 17:00," it said in a brief statement.
Schedule 7, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, controversially allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals. Miranda was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual.
According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 – over 97% – last less than an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than six hours. It has been widely criticised for giving police broad powers under the guise of anti-terror legislation to stop and search individuals without prior authorisation or reasonable suspicion – setting it apart from other police powers.
Widney Brown, Amnesty International's senior director of international law and policy, said: "It is utterly improbable that David Michael Miranda, a Brazilian national transiting through London, was detained at random, given the role his partner has played in revealing the truth about the unlawful nature of NSA surveillance.
"David's detention was unlawful and inexcusable. He was detained under a law that violates any principle of fairness and his detention shows how the law can be abused for petty, vindictive reasons. There is simply no basis for believing that David Michael Miranda presents any threat whatsoever to the UK government. The only possible intent behind this detention was to harass him and his partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, for his role in analysing the data released by Edward Snowden."
Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden.
While in Berlin, Miranda visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights. Miranda is not an employee of the Guardian. As Greenwald's partner, he often assists him in his work and the Guardian normally reimburses the expenses of someone aiding a reporter in such circumstances.
"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.
"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively."
A spokesperson for the Guardian said: "We were dismayed that the partner of a Guardian journalist who has been writing about the security services was detained for nearly nine hours while passing through Heathrow airport. We are urgently seeking clarification from the British authorities."
Labour MP Tom Watson said he was shocked at the news and called for it to be made clear if any ministers were involved in authorising the detention. He said: "It's almost impossible, even without full knowledge of the case, to conclude that Glenn Greenwald's partner was a terrorist suspect.
"I think that we need to know if any ministers knew about this decision, and exactly who authorised it. The clause in this act is not meant to be used as a catch-all that can be used in this way."
Those stopped under schedule 7 have no automatic right to legal advice and it is a criminal offence to refuse to co-operate with questioning, which critics say is a curtailment of the right to silence. Last month, the government said it would reduce the maximum period of detention to six hours and promised a review of the operation on schedule 7, amid concerns it unfairly targets minority groups and gives individuals fewer legal protections than they would have if detained at a police station.

No comments: