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

[teamsaint]

Does " having an open mind" mean the same as "Giving the government the benefit of the doubt until they have prevaricated for so long that some other issue overtakes it in importance"? (and it can be conveniently swept under the carpet to the sound of a half hearted ministerial apology).

[ahinton]

Much appreciated, AIC. Refreshing to see another open mind as opposed to those who doggedly insist on selectively quoting to support their prejudices.

Much appreciated by you, perhaps, but it seems so far to have cut very little ince with anyone else. That said, where exactly is the "selective quotation" and/or "prejudices" in the post where I wrote

"It might indeed be "pointless" - or at least premature - to seek to determine the outcome of every aspect of this case when an official inquiry into it has yet to commence and when litigation has also yet to commence, but it is not "pointless" to point out (as Pabmusic in particular has done in considerable detail) what laws and legal powers currently exist, as the adherence or otherwise to these will represent a fundamental part of both the investigation and the trial. I do not say that the police or anyone else acted unlawfully, for to do that would be to pronounce people guilty before trial; what I do say, however, is that the evidence of the incident so far gathered is more than sufficient to justify the requirement for such an inquiry and to identify any litigation as genuine rather than merely vexatious."

Just curious...

[ahinton]

Does " having an open mind" mean the same as "Giving the government the benefit of the doubt until they have prevaricated for so long that some other issue overtakes it in importance"? (and it can be conveniently swept under the carpet to the sound of a half hearted ministerial apology).

Probably, although, in this instance, it might instead - or even also - signify having a mind whose openness arises from sheer emptiness and a preparedness to be filled with whatever prejudice, complacency and the like that could be poured into it.

As I have stated on more occasions than I care to have to remember, blind, unquestioning and unfailing trust in the infallibility of "the powers that be" - whether they be governments, police / armed forces or other arms of officialdom - is not merely dangerously stupid but also puzzling when one remembers that these organisations are all populated entirely by people, just as are terrorist groups, symphony orchestras and women's institutes; data leakers are also people, just as are civil servants, government ministers, judges, police chiefs and the rest. What is it that gives rise to the kind of complacent knee-jerk reaction to events that manifests its unwelcome self in repeated assertions that people in authority are always right and must therefore hold sway at all times and people that are not and who do things that some of us think that they might prefer them not to do are usually wrong?

[teamsaint]

Oh that is an easy one AH..
its fear of what we will discover, when our "certainties" are exposed for the fallible opinions that they in fact are.

[ahinton]

Oh that is an easy one AH..
its fear of what we will discover, when our "certainties" are exposed for the fallible opinions that they in fact are.

That's OK for people who have such certainties; anyone who accepts the simple and unarguable fact of human fallibility in all its inglory, however, has no credible right to such certainties.

[teamsaint]

That's OK for people who have such certainties; anyone who accepts the simple and unarguable fact of human fallibility in all its inglory, however, has no credible right to such certainties.

are you certain? (cheekygrinsmiley)

"The More I see , the less I believe", as the fun Boy three said 30 years ago....

[french frank]

Thus The Economist.

"The Terrorism Act 2000 was aimed at Irish republican terrorism. One section gives police exceptional powers to question travellers at British borders for up to nine hours—without suspicion and without a lawyer. Refusal to answer is itself a crime. (Mr Miranda was forced to divulge encryption passwords.) Police may seize property, though it must be returned. The only constraint is that the purpose should be to ascertain if the person “is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

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

[Bumfluff]

Probably, although, in this instance, it might instead - or even also - signify having a mind whose openness arises from sheer emptiness and a preparedness to be filled with whatever prejudice, complacency and the like that could be poured into it.

. What is it that gives rise to the kind of complacent knee-jerk reaction to events that manifests its unwelcome self in repeated assertions that people in authority are always right and must therefore hold sway at all times and people that are not and who do things that some of us think that they might prefer them not to do are usually wrong?

Don't such people basically believe everything that Hobbes says in Leviathan? And most fundamentally the insistence that the only way any human beings can secure their material existence is via a strong, authoritarian state in which the ruler has absolute, unchallengable power and their opinions on the best interests of the state and its citizens' activities are total and irrevocable? It's quite difficult to argue against this because mostly what we have to fall back on is history, which does sort of demonstrate that only the 'strongest' (eg most self-interested, ruthless, violent, immoral) states have survived, despite periodic advances in the notion of how humans should live. The point, surely, is that it doesn't have to be that way, but conservatives think that's wishful thinking, it DOES have to be that way. Such an attitude belittles the advances that have been made; like all conservatism it's actually completely blind to what has happened. Five centuries ago, and indeed for most of human history under kleptomaniac rulers, their lives would have been short, brutish, ignorant and disease-ridden. It's in the nature of conservatism to blindly, stupidly, wickedly, insanely say "thus far with improving human life, and no further", even though conservatives have been saying that every step along the way for the last 400 years. Of course that's when it isn't selfishness ie wanting to deny other human beings the benefits you've been granted. So what's the reason? Fear? Yes. Rationality? That's what they say, but it's easy to demolish their arguments.
Ted Honderich does this in http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conservatism...+ted+honderich

[Resurrection Man]

Thus The Economist.

"The Terrorism Act 2000 was aimed at Irish republican terrorism. One section gives police exceptional powers to question travellers at British borders for up to nine hours—without suspicion and without a lawyer. Refusal to answer is itself a crime. (Mr Miranda was forced to divulge encryption passwords.) Police may seize property, though it must be returned. The only constraint is that the purpose should be to ascertain if the person “is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism”.

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

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

Collection of information.

(1)

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b)

he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.

(2)

In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

[ahinton]

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

Collection of information.

(1)

A person commits an offence if—

(a)

he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or

(b)

he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.

(2)

In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

I am unaware that FF has "glossed over" anything here. What you write is indeed correct insofar as it goes, of course, but its direct pertinence to this case is where it would appear to collapse, otherwise authorities of the order of David Anderson QC, Lord Falconer and others would have said less than they have done about the incident; the police presumably had no knowledge when detaining Mr Miranda if indeed he had collected or made records of, or possessed, such documentation and, if during the course of little short of nine hours, they omitted to refer to, let alone question, data thus related to Mr Miranda that was likely to be useful to a person or persons committing or preparing an act or acts of terrorism, it remains questionable that they acted in strict accordance with all the provisions of Section 7.

[An_Inspector_Calls]

Hinton
FF's "This looks preposterous in Mr Miranda’s case, if the term terrorism is to have meaning. " sounds remarkably like glossing over to my mind. Especially given that the police have already claimed ""Initial examination of material seized has identified highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk,"? Now, before you rush in, that's not necessarily terrorism, of course, but already it seems to me that it's quite possible (certainly a long way from 'preposterous') that there'll be a terrorism link.

[Tony Halstead]

So, are you therefore saying that the police

acted in strict accordance with all the provisions of Section 7.

?
yes or no, please.

[ahinton]

Hinton
FF's "This looks preposterous in Mr Miranda’s case, if the term terrorism is to have meaning. " sounds remarkably like glossing over to my mind. Especially given that the police have already claimed ""Initial examination of material seized has identified highly sensitive material, the disclosure of which could put lives at risk,"? Now, before you rush in, that's not necessarily terrorism, of course, but already it seems to me that it's quite possible (certainly a long way from 'preposterous') that there'll be a terrorism link.

ahinton to you.

As I have almost gotten tired of implying, what Mr Miranda might have had in his possession is not known to me or to you and neither of us is therefore at liberty to pronouce authoritatively upon it but, if those who detained him had no more idea about that at the time of their detention of him than you or I do, they might - I do not say will - have transgressed the provisions of the Section to which I referred. Possibilities are one thing but actualities are quite another; it seems to me that the latter only must be relied upon if the authorities charged with the powers of detention under Section 7 are to be justified in carrying out such detentions as that which we are discussing here. Again, as I have written previously, we'll have to wait and see but, in the interim, the fact that at least two distinguished and knowledgeable UK QCs appear to have expressed serious concerns and reservations as to the conduct of this incident cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. Let's wait and see but, as sufficient suspicion as to the manner of the conduct concerned has been expressed publicly by a number of people of whom at least some might have reasonable grounds to expect to be believed on the basis of their professional experience, let us also bear in mind that the possibility of statutory breach is accordingly not to be dismissed lightly.

[french frank]

FF's "This looks preposterous in Mr Miranda’s case, if the term terrorism is to have meaning. " sounds remarkably like glossing over to my mind.

Just to be clear, since the statement is now detached from my post and therefore lacking the link: these were the Economist blogger's words, not mine. But I was copying them.

It may be that the police will turn up something which will make us all gasp in amazement at its unexpectedness but so far the links seem to be Glenn Greenwald, a Guardian columnist who has been covering the Snowden case. It's still not clear from this where the 'terrorism' comes in - unless, as I've said, the police turn up &c &c.

Many sources seem to think it's:

Britain's botched use of terror laws. (FT)

Use of UK terror law to detain reporter's partner 'a disgrace' (Reuters).

Terror laws under scrutiny (Indy)

Terror watchdog's warning as Met holds partner of Snowden journalist (Standard)

David Miranda's detention shows that the state is not only malevolent but stupid too (Spectator blog)

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

[french frank]

these were the Economist blogger's words, not mine.

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”.'