"If you've done nothing wrong" & section 7

[ahinton]

Correction: Of course this was an article in The Economist, not a blog. I also read:

'Lord Falconer, who helped introduce the [Terrorism] legislation and later became Lord Chancellor under Tony Blair, says that the act “does not apply, either on its terms or in its spirit, to Mr Miranda”.'

Well, it might seem that to a small handful of people here that Lord Falconer's sentiments mean little or nothing but, as that in no wise means that they should necessarily do so, let's wait and see what the outcomes of both litigation on Mr Miranda's part and official investigations on that of the UK Government might yield...

[An_Inspector_Calls]

But let's reserve judgment and see if the WMDs are indeed present here.

Indeed, especially as the police have already revealed "highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk" in his possession.

[amateur51]

Indeed, especially as the police have already revealed "highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk" in his possession.

Revealed? In what sense 'revealed'?

[scottycelt]

As I have almost gotten tired of implying ...

Sorry to interrupt ...

Whilst the rest of us may have almost fallen fast asleep at your many and varied implications, ahinton, it has not slipped my notice (and not for the first time) that the archaic, ear-wrenching, guttural English word 'gotten' has not been used by Englishmen (or women) for centuries, never mind by a self-described, self-respecting 'Scot'.

Have you spent any time in any of the former colonies, by any chance, which might help to explain such strikingly outmoded use of language?

Or should I best pursue the matter further on Pedants Corner?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Revealed? In what sense 'revealed'?

The 'Greek' sense . . . to . . .reveal.

[amateur51]

The 'Greek' sense . . .

Meaning what?

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Revealed? In what sense 'revealed'?

What do you mean by 'sense' here?

[Richard Barrett]

I think what Amateur51 is saying is that the police have actually revealed nothing at all. They say they have "highly sensitive material" but I think Mandy Rice-Davies would have had an appropriate answer to that.

[ahinton]

Sorry to interrupt ...

Whilst the rest of us may have almost fallen fast asleep at your many and varied implications, ahinton, it has not slipped my notice (and not for the first time) that the archaic, ear-wrenching, guttural English word 'gotten' has not been used by Englishmen (or women) for centuries, never mind by a self-described, self-respecting 'Scot'.

Have you spent any time in any of the former colonies, by any chance, which might help to explain such strikingly outmoded use of language?

Or should I best pursue the matter further on Pedants Corner?

Yes, I think that you probably should.

[Sydney Grew]

From The Economist:

" . . . preposterous in Mr Miranda’s case, if the term terrorism is to have meaning."

According to the O.E.D. the word "terrorism" appears first to have come into widespread use with the "government by intimidation directed and carried out by the party in power in France" during the revolution there (1793-4). More generally it means "the employment of methods of intimidation." The Dictionary also describes a "reign of terror" as "a state of things in which the general community live in fear of death or outrage," or "the use of organized intimidation." Please note the key word in all this which is "intimidation," meaning "the use of threats or violence to force to or restrain from some action, or to interfere with the free exercise of political or social rights."

Now I would like to draw attention to something the O.E.D. does not mention, which is my observation that the most common use of the word "terrorism" in the twentieth century was in fact by the German government (in the German language "Terrorismus") during the early 'forties, when it was routinely applied to acts of sabotage by the "resistance" in a number of lands.

[Pabmusic]

FF, you are conveniently glossing over this other part of the Act...

And you are conveniently ignoring Schedule 7, which gives the only lawful justification for detaining someone at an airport under the Act. Schedule 7 says clearly that, in order to be able exercise the power they were given by the Terrorism Act, they had to comply with this:

"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)".

And section 40(1)(b) says:

"...is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism".

That was the limit of their power. It is irrelevant whether anything 'might have been useful' to a terrorist. The standard is higher, requiring that the suspicion is that the person "...is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism". I am pretty sure that if there was any evidence of that (or anything that could have been construed as evidence), Miranda would now be in Belmarsh.

As to the history and dictionary definitions of 'terrorism', in a sense it's irrelevant as the Act defines terrorism for the purposes of the Act (see Caliban's post 149 and my 171).

I believe there's to be a judicial review of Miranda's detention, and an injunction has been granted preventing further 'fishing' by the police. The High Court will concern itself with the implementation of Schedule 7 - did the authorities comply? It will be interesting to see the respondents' argument.

[Pabmusic]

Yes, I think tht you probably should.

Yes indeed, though my grandmother (and other older members of her family) who spoke in a heavy Hampshire/West Country dialect said 'gotten' more often than not ("was'e gott'n thur'n?).

[An_Inspector_Calls]

I think what Amateur51 is saying is that the police have actually revealed nothing at all. They say they have "highly sensitive material" but I think Mandy Rice-Davies would have had an appropriate answer to that.

I never thought of that! Gosh, blimey, what a surprise! To think the police could sink that low?

Their 'claim given out on the BBC is

"We welcome the decision of the court which allows our examination of the material - containing thousands of classified intelligence documents - to continue in order to protect life and national security...

"Initial examination of material seized has identified highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk. As a result the Counter Terrorism Command has today begun a criminal investigation."

We'll see.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

And you are conveniently ignoring Schedule 7, which gives the only lawful justification for detaining someone at an airport under the Act.

I've been detained lawfully at Heathrow, on more than one occasion, for over two hours. No one brought me so much as a cup of tea or offered any reason for the detention.

But there's two stories here.

On the one hand we have the issue of the police's use of section 7 - whether or not that was appropriate - which may have had the consequence of Miranda being detained illegally(?) for a whole nine hours.

On the other, we have the issue of whether or not Miranda was carrying intelligence secrets (which may or may not have terrorism relevance) whilst assisting Greenwald in his work commissioned by the Guardian

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-terrorism-law-watchdog

[Tony Halstead]

I never thought of that! Gosh, blimey, what a surprise! To think the police could sink that low?

Their 'claim given out on the BBC is

"We welcome the decision of the court which allows our examination of the material - containing thousands of classified intelligence documents - to continue in order to protect life and national security...

"Initial examination of material seized has identified highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk. As a result the Counter Terrorism Command has today begun a criminal investigation."

We'll see.

So, do you believe that the police acted in strict accordance with all the provisions of Section 7?
Yes or No please.