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

[Richard Barrett]

I know from past experience that the standard response from many of you...too many to name but I can if you insist...is that 'I won't answer a hypothetical question' which frankly is a cop-out and at a stroke undermines all your well-meaning platitudes and concern for your fellow-man.

I hear the faint sound of straw men falling to the ground...

No, your explanation is not "equally as [sic] valid", as Pabmusic points out. It's a scenario you've concocted to support your view of things, which would have to be regarded as considerably less likely than others. Leaving aside the question of what Mr Miranda might have had in his possession that "could be of use to a terrorist", which maybe you'd like to answer, because it's by no means clear to me, the overwhelming balance of prior evidence here is that he may possibly have had items in his possession relating to the ongoing work of Mr Greenwald. I think we can all agree that Mr Greenwald is not a terrorist but an investigative journalist whose main concern is exposing the practices carried out by the USA and UK governments to democratic scrutiny. In what way have the revelations made so far by Mr Greenwald been "of use to a terrorist"?

[Pabmusic]

Yes, it can. Why should you expect to be 'told' of any allegation ? Who is to say that there was insufficient evidence to arrest but some nevertheless ? Your 'facts' are groundless and based on wishful thinking, I would suggest.

Very poor reasoning, RM. There are three possibilities (actually there's more, but I'm limiting this to what you and I have said). He may have been picked on for [A] whatever reason - intimidation, for instance - that would seem to be wrong, even if the Act allows it to happen. Or he might have been picked on because police suspected he was carrying something illegal, in which case he either [B] was, or he [C] wasn't.

If it were [A] or [C], then the outcome would most likely have been release without any action (we know this from our knowledge of how things work out there in the wide world). If it were [B] it is inconceivable that he would not have been arrested and whisked into Belmarsh. That didn't happen, so it is a reasonable assumption that it was [A] or [C]. The corollary is that [B] was not the case, so that any argument attempting to establish [B] is very much poorer that anything arising from the other two. I pointed out in post 13 above that all possibilities do not have equal likelihoods.

Pause for a moment to recollect what you posited in post 10, that it was 'equally likely' that he "did have in his possession documents and information that could be of use to a terrorist". (Note that you did not say 'may' have had them in his possession, but that he 'did' have them.)

Now, Miranda having been released without charge, has it not become more likely that [A] or [C] was correct and not [B], which was your assertion?

But you've now changed your reasoning, since you say "who is to say that there was insufficient evidence to arrest but some nevertheless?" (This was not what I was responding to in post 13 - which was your suggestion that he did have stuff in his possession). But if my aunt had been built differently she'd have been my uncle... So, here goes. What you say is true - perhaps the authorities thought he was carrying something, but in fact he wasn't - which is a mistake on their part, not his. As for "who is to say that there was insufficient evidence to arrest but some nevertheless?", it sounds like desperation to me. Here we have one of the most wide-ranging pieces of legislation, allowing UK police more authority than they have in the UK itself (that's why it's restricted to transit areas) - and even though there may have been 'some' evidence of terrorism, it was insufficient to justify an arrest. Really??

[amateur51]

If one looks at the actual wording (the word "will" doesn't appear, pabs), it's always seemed to me perfectly sensible:

You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence.


It may not be the most elegant phrase ever turned in English, but otherwise I don't have much of a problem with it. It just says that the failure to mention straight away something relied on later may be relevant. Which it may. No?

Up to a point Lord Copper. It means everything and nothing in those moments of panic when you've been held in a police station, doubtless shouted at and 'fallen down the station steps, m'Lud!'. You can't make head nor tail of what that sentence means to your predicament when it's just heard like that.

[Frances_iom]

the detention for 9 hours seems to shriek intimidation - assuming that GCHQ + their NSA paymasters were on a fishing expedition it takes less than an hour to forensically copy all computer drives, phone sim cards etc after which they could be returned as it is extremely unlikely he would be carrying the only copy - anyway there is a 400+GB encrypted file released into the wild some days ago as an 'insurance policy' - all it needs is the passphrase to decrypt

[Serial_Apologist]

Up to a point Lord Copper. It means everything and nothing in those moments of panic when you've been held in a police station, doubtless shouted at and 'fallen down the station steps, m'Lud!'. You can't make head nor tail of what that sentence means to your predicament when it's just heard like that.

Couldn't have put it better meself...

[Nick Armstrong]

Up to a point Lord Copper. It means everything and nothing in those moments of panic when you've been held in a police station, doubtless shouted at and 'fallen down the station steps, m'Lud!'. You can't make head nor tail of what that sentence means to your predicament when it's just heard like that.

But then the suspect can advance a good reason not to have mentioned everything straight away. I'm not sure that the potential occurrences you mention mean that there shouldn't be a sensible caution.

[amateur51]

But then the suspect can advance a good reason not to have mentioned everything straight away. I'm not sure that the potential occurrences you mention mean that there shouldn't be a sensible caution.

My point is that even in a quiet room with good lighting & the opportunity to read it, the caution doesn't make immediate evident sense, which is surely what a caution is meant to do. Does it mean that I have to announce my defence immediately and spontaneously, off the cuff, and stick by it come what may?

It sounds like something cobbled together from an original draft to clarify (or not) the original meaning - which is how Pabs described its genesis, I think.

[Nick Armstrong]

Does it mean that I have to announce my defence immediately and spontaneously, off the cuff, and stick by it come what may?

No - see the first sentence:

You do not have to say anything.

[amateur51]

No - see the first sentence:

See second sentence. sounds like a pig in a poke to me :winkeye:

Nobody wants to harm her/his defence, surely :oh:

Is there any other likely life instance where these words might be uttered?

[Nick Armstrong]

In any event, I advise against poking the pigs!

[amateur51]

In any event, I advise against poking the pigs!

So is this a double-bind or a Catch-22? - I think we should be told :smiley:

[Resurrection Man]

....In what way have the revelations made so far by Mr Greenwald been "of use to a terrorist"?

You don't know. Neither do I. But I like to keep an open mind....something which seems very rare in these parts.

[Richard Barrett]

I like to keep an open mind

It seems rather that you like to find a reason to accept the official line.

[Resurrection Man]

Very poor reasoning, RM. There are three possibilities (actually there's more, but I'm limiting this to what you and I have said). He may have been picked on for [A] whatever reason - intimidation, for instance - that would seem to be wrong, even if the Act allows it to happen. Or he might have been picked on because police suspected he was carrying something illegal, in which case he either [B] was, or he [C] wasn't.

If it were [A] or [C], then the outcome would most likely have been release without any action (we know this from our knowledge of how things work out there in the wide world). If it were [B] it is inconceivable that he would not have been arrested and whisked into Belmarsh. That didn't happen, so it is a reasonable assumption that it was [A] or [C].

I agree with your analysis up until your last statement which is founded on nothing more than wishful thinking. It is just as reasonable to assume that he did have stuff but insufficient etc etc ....

.... I pointed out in post 13 above that all possibilities do not have equal likelihoods.

Not based on any factual evidence though...just your own viewpoint...

Anyway, enough dancing around. You have proved my point for me for which I thank you.

..... Here we have one of the most wide-ranging pieces of legislation, allowing UK police more authority than they have in the UK itself (that's why it's restricted to transit areas) - and even though there may have been 'some' evidence of terrorism, it was insufficient to justify an arrest. Really??

You are privy then to the entire workings of the security service and the police....You must be otherwise how can you make this assertion?

[Stillhomewardbound]

Isn't there a delicious irony in the fact that Glenn Greenwald's partner shares his surname with the statutory convention that governs the rights of suspects when taken for questioning by US police. Y'know, the one that makes sure detainees are advised that they have rights, as in the right to an attorney being present during questioning. Just one of the little niceties that this Brazilian national was denied during his nine-hour detention on British soil:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_warning