Snowdon is a dummy

You are trying to reason with people who hate America and Americans..

Because we don't have any evidence is isn't true.

You are trying to reason with people who hate America and Americans...and who think it genius to second-guess every government move.

You are never going to penetrate the concrete, Revelette.

You are trying to reason with people who hate America and Americans...and who think it genius to second-guess every government move.

You are never going to penetrate the concrete, Revelette.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/partner-of-journalist-at-center-of-nsa-leak-detained-for-about-9-hours-at-heathrow-airport/2013/08/18/b1d81ea4-086b-11e3-89fe-abb4a5067014_story_1.html


Partner of journalist linked to Edward Snowden was held by London police for
A defiant Greenwald, who reports for the Guardian newspaper in Britain, promised he was going “to write much more aggressively than before” about government snooping.

“I’m going to publish many more things about England, as well,” he said in Portuguese at Rio’s international airport when Miranda arrived. “I have many documents about England’s espionage system, and now my focus will be there, too. I think they’ll regret what they’ve done.”

12.00pm BST
Here's the Home Office statement in full.

The government and the police have a duty to protect the public and our national security. If the police believe that an individual is in possession of highly sensitive stolen information that would help terrorism, then they should act and the law provides them with a framework to do that. Those who oppose this sort of action need to think about what they are condoning.

This is an ongoing police inquiry so will not comment on the specifics.

Translated, what that seems to mean is: David Miranda was carrying leaked secret information that would have been useful to terrorists.

Four national [UK] newspapers have published editorials about the David Miranda detention today. Here's what they say.

• The Guardian says the use of schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act to detain David Miranda was a betrayal of trust.
... ... ...

• The Financial Times says that, although the US and the UK are entitled to persue Edward Snowden, the detention of David Miranda was excessive.
... ... ...

• The Daily Mirror says Miranda’s detention was a threat to freedom.
... ... ...

• The Times says the police need to justify the detention of Miranda.

... I think we share some of the blame for what, I believe, was a really, really dumb thing to do.

Rusbridger says the Edward Snowden material reveals fundamantal concerns about the powers of the state. These are important public issues. Even President Obama has recognised this. It is a subject of "high public importance". You cannot write about that if you do not have the facts.

Striking a balance between security, and the press's ability to write about this, is difficult.

But in the UK the state has acted against the Guardian in a way that would not be possible in the US.

The authorities threatened "prior restraint" - going to court to stop the Guardian publishing further material.

Rusbridger says he spoke to senior Whitehall officials about this.

Q: Did this go straight to Number 10?

Yes, says Rusbridger.

Q: And they said destroy the material or give it back to them?

Yes, says Rusbridger. He told them that the Guardian had other copies of the material abroad. That is why the paper was prepared to comply with the demand for the UK version to be destroyed.

Mr Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, was held at the airport under the Terrorism Act.

His solicitors say he is challenging the legality of his detention.

The Home Office has defended the detention, saying police must act if they think someone has "stolen information that would help terrorism".

Law firm Bindmans have written to the home secretary and Met Police commissioner for assurances "there will be no inspection, copying, disclosure, transfer, distribution or interference, in any way, with our client's data pending determination of our client's claim".

• He said he was willing to destroy a copy of the Snowden material at the Guardian's office in London because other copies were available abroad.

It was quite explicit. We had to destroy it or give it back to them. What they wanted for us to give it back to them. I explained that there were other copies, not within the UK, and I did not really see the point of destroying one copy. But because we had other copies I was happy to destroy a copy in London.

Officials threatened legal action if the Guardian did not destroy the material. Rusbridger said he could have resisted in the courts, but that this could have taken up to a year and that during this time the Guardian would not have been allowed to write about this material. Instead, he decided to transfer the reporting to America, he said.

Officials threatened legal action if the Guardian did not destroy the material. Rusbridger said he could have resisted in the courts, but that this could have taken up to a year and that during this time the Guardian would not have been allowed to write about this material.