Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Privacy Government The Media United Kingdom

Members of Parliament Demand Explanation For Detention of David Miranda 321

Posted by samzenpus
from the explain-yourself dept.
megla writes "Yesterday Slashdot covered reports that David Miranda, the partner of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald was detained. Now, various MPs and other public figures have expressed their unease over the detention and demanded justification for the incident from the police. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald has threatened to be more aggressive with his reporting regarding the UK secret services and to release more documents about their activities, Brazil has stated that it expects no repeat of the incident, and one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Members of Parliament Demand Explanation For Detention of David Miranda

Comments Filter:
  • by Hatta (162192) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:37PM (#44608493) Journal

    Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

    • by Nidi62 (1525137) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:46PM (#44608579)
      The representatives that passed the legislation might not have expected it. But I'm sure the people who wrote it probably did.
      • by Joce640k (829181) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:07PM (#44608807) Homepage

        Nah, they probably weren't using their brains either.

        Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

        Law used to have public debate before being passed. Laws created behind closed doors then rushed through voting will always have bad side effects.

        • by lister king of smeg (2481612) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:22PM (#44608987)

          Nah, they probably weren't using their brains either.

          Never put down to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

          Law used to have public debate before being passed. Laws created behind closed doors then rushed through voting will always have bad side effects.

          Except you always reverse that when it comes to government, then it is usually malice disguised as stupidity. If they didn't have to worry about reelection they wouldn't even bother with the disguise of stupidity.

          • Please, they don't bear guises of stupidity. They they pretend to be "doing the right thing". I think you're seriously overestimating the competence of lawmakers here.

            • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Monday August 19, 2013 @02:01PM (#44609449)
              Rather than quibbling about smart acting stupid or genuine stupid, how about we just agree it's bad. The effect is still the same: giving government agencies power without oversight will lead to bad times for the citizens whether it's bumbling well-meaning idiots or sinister SPECTRE agents pulling the strings.

              The reps who passed this should be tossed out either way. The law needs to go either way.
              • by Artifakt (700173) on Monday August 19, 2013 @02:48PM (#44609935)

                Absolutely! When people get drawn into debates over whether a bad act is deliberate malice or just stupidity, the bad acts end up both unpunished and, more importantly, uncorrected. Corrupt organizations love to see the debate become focused on whether there's deliberate intent before any serious efforts to fix the problem even get started. Saying we can't fix the problems until we decide the question of the individual's motives is a great way to never fix the problem. It's the same trick when the subordinate says they were just following orders and the superior says their orders were misinterpreted. The real solution is to discipline both of them the same way as if these 'defenses' had never been uttered.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The ends justify the means. This is how laws like this are passed.

        Do you know what the problem is with the ends justify the means? It assumes that you can predict the future. And in complex cases involving millions of human beings, you generally can't. This is why smart people depend on principles instead. They know they can't predict the future, but they can learn from the past. Throwing out the principles of detention only upon reasonable suspicion, not being forced to self incriminate, and the ability to

    • by sherrane (2847537) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:46PM (#44608581)

      Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

      Are they idiots? No. Do they think we're idiots? You'd have to be an idiot if you didn't realize every politician on the planet thinks we are all idiots.

    • by Roger W Moore (538166) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:52PM (#44608645) Journal

      If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

      True, but as you say that is true for all laws and we certainly cannot have a society without laws so this is a problem we will always have to deal with. So this is not something stupid: this is the first signs of the system hopefully working as it should. An abuse of the law has been brought to light and now those responsible need to be held to account for it with appropriate sanctions, i.e. not just a slap on the knuckles for something as serious as this appears to be. Lets keep our fingers crossed and hope that the system works.

      • by Hatta (162192) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:59PM (#44608715) Journal

        An abuse of the law has been brought to light and now those responsible need to be held to account for it with appropriate sanctions, i.e. not just a slap on the knuckles for something as serious as this appears to be.

        Appropriate sanctions being jail time for the kidnapping of this man. The most you're actually going to see is a censure, and we'll be lucky if we get that.

      • by Joce640k (829181)

        Laws used to have public debate and input before being put up for vote.

        This seems to happen less and less often these days, with predictable results.

        • by CRCulver (715279) <crculver@christopherculver.com> on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:13PM (#44608891) Homepage
          There is public debate and input: election cycles. It is unreasonable to expect public debate of every law when understanding such laws in detail (as opposed to misunderstanding it or falling for a caricature the opposition spreads in the popular press) requires considerable legal training. While there will always be some tiny amount of votes who read the text of a law and write in to their representatives to voice their opinion, the general public is simply incapable of following the detailed legalese involved.
          • by 0123456 (636235) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:15PM (#44608915)

            If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?

            • by 1s44c (552956) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:30PM (#44609083)

              If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?

              Joe Public is not meant to understand the law. Joe Public is just meant to stay afraid of the police so he is controllable.

            • by alexgieg (948359)

              If understanding a law requires 'considerable legal training', then it's a bad law. How can Joe Public know whether they're breaking a law if they can't understand it?

              Bad from our perspective, good from theirs. It makes sense for power hungry politicians to have as many ways to persecute enemies, real or imaginary, as possible. A huge set of arbitrary, ambiguous laws which the powers that be can or not apply to individuals is all they want, because with them everyone is guilty of something and then it's just a matter of choosing who to silence and how to best silence them given the set of laws that can be applied to his "case".

              I don't know about the US or the UK, but her

              • by Phrogman (80473)

                In the original democracy of Athens, they had a stone wall in the center of the Agora (the marketplace) on which were printed *all* the laws which governed Athens, so that no citizen could claim to be unaware of them (if you couldn't read, you got a slave to read it to you etc). Hardly practical these days but indicative of the solution: we need a reduction in laws such that the average person *can* theoretically be familiar with most of them, or at least those which affect their lives. We need laws free of

      • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:07PM (#44608805) Journal
        The law is ripe for abuse as written:

        Miranda was stopped at the airport, presumably under the terms of Terrorism Act 2000 [legislation.gov.uk] Schedule 7: "Ports and Border Controls"(on page 108)

        "Power to stop, question and detain

        2.—(1) An examining ocer 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).

        (2) This paragraph applies to a person if—
        (a) he is at a port or in the border area, and
        (b) the examining ocer believes that the person’s presence at the port or in the area is connected with his entering or leaving Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
        (3) This paragraph also applies to a person on a ship or aircraft which has arrived in Great Britain or Northern Ireland.
        (4) An examining ocer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b)."(emphasis mine)

        The law actually says, explicitly, that the powers of border detention can be exercised without meeting any standard of suspicion, 'reasonable' or otherwise. If that wasn't designed to be abused, I'm not sure what would qualify, it overtly allows up to 9 hours detention on any grounds whatsoever, or none. ('section 40(1)(b)' defines a 'terrorist')
        • We need a FOIA of the London US Embassy call records the day before and the day of this premeditated attack.

          This garbage is no different than the no-fly threats against the President of Bolivia.
        • by bagofbeans (567926) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:49PM (#44609309)
          It's actually a little more subtle than that:

          Terrorism Act 2000 Schedule 7
          2(1)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).

          5A person who is questioned under paragraph 2 or 3 must
          (a)give the examining officer any information in his possession which the officer requests;
          (b)give the examining officer on request either a valid passport which includes a photograph or another document which establishes his identity;
          (c)declare whether he has with him documents of a kind specified by the examining officer;
          (d)give the examining officer on request any document which he has with him and which is of a kind specified by the officer.

          Also, under the "Examining Officers under the Terrorism Act 2000 Code of Practice" Code-of-Practice-for-Examin1.pdf:

          The examining officer should advise the detained person that, under paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 to the Act he/she has a duty to give the officer all the information in his/her possession which the officer requests in connection with his determining whether the person appears to be, or have been, concerned in the commission preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The detained person should also be reminded that not complying with this duty is a criminal offence under paragraph 18(1) of Schedule 7 to the Act.

          This means that one has to submit to full search of electronic stuff (decrypting where necessary), but questioning about stuff clearly irrelevant to terrorism need not be answered.

          If Miranda was largely questioned about irrelevant stuff to use up the 9 hours, than that's something to take up with ECHR as abuse.

          • But - also remember that the law specifically allows the detainee to be deprived of a lawyer who can properly advise them of the limits of the law and the limit to which they must comply (lawfully). Which means: inevitable abuse and overreaching by those imposing the powers and detainees not knowing where they stand and having no recourse to proper independent advice.

            The law is written so abuse can happen.

            • by xelah (176252)
              It looks like this is being improved. As your AC respondent points out, you can demand a solicitor (=lawyer) if you're detained in a police station. A bill in parliament says this:

              Right of person detained under Schedule 7 to have someone informed and to consult a solicitor 5 (1) 40Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is amended as follows. (2) In paragraph 6, for “police station”, in each place, there is substituted “place”. (3) In paragraph 7(1) the words “at a police stati

        • by QuasiSteve (2042606) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:53PM (#44609363)

          The law actually says, explicitly, that the powers of border detention can be exercised without meeting any standard of suspicion, 'reasonable' or otherwise. If that wasn't designed to be abused, I'm not sure what would qualify, it overtly allows up to 9 hours detention on any grounds whatsoever, or none. ('section 40(1)(b)' defines a 'terrorist')

          Although it may very well have been designed to be abused, there's also a slightly more benign (insofar as evils being on a grade) explanation; covering asses.

          Let's say all the suspicion is "didn't smell right" - not a particularly reasonable suspicion. Now say it turns out the person they detained had nefarious plans. They wouldn't want to start out any case by saying they didn't have reasonable suspicion with a law saying that they must have one. At best it damages their case, at worst it undermines it entirely. Politicians drawing up the laws similarly don't want to be responsible for having to let people go just because "didn't smell right" was not acceptable.
          It leads to abuse, and that could easily have been foreseen, but that in itself may not have been the driving force.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Coward

            The law actually says, explicitly, that the powers of border detention can be exercised without meeting any standard of suspicion, 'reasonable' or otherwise. If that wasn't designed to be abused, I'm not sure what would qualify, it overtly allows up to 9 hours detention on any grounds whatsoever, or none. ('section 40(1)(b)' defines a 'terrorist')

            Although it may very well have been designed to be abused, there's also a slightly more benign (insofar as evils being on a grade) explanation; covering asses.

            Let's say all the suspicion is "didn't smell right" - not a particularly reasonable suspicion. Now say it turns out the person they detained had nefarious plans. They wouldn't want to start out any case by saying they didn't have reasonable suspicion with a law saying that they must have one. At best it damages their case, at worst it undermines it entirely. Politicians drawing up the laws similarly don't want to be responsible for having to let people go just because "didn't smell right" was not acceptable.
            It leads to abuse, and that could easily have been foreseen, but that in itself may not have been the driving force.

            The very situation you describe is abuse!

            The reason it's illegal to arrest someone without due cause is because that is abuse - if you do not have due cause, you are arresting them based on prejudice (actual use of the word, pre-judging somebody based on an irrelevant detail e.g. "they smell wrong").

          • by geoskd (321194)

            Politicians drawing up the laws similarly don't want to be responsible for having to let people go just because "didn't smell right" was not acceptable.

            Why not? That persons effectiveness as a terrorist just went effectively to zero. You know who they are individually. They themselves can never again take direct part in a plot, or they will expose others. Even indirectly, their involvement in a future plot endangers all of the conspirators. Unless the terrorist is a complete moron, they will avoid any of their former terrorist contacts, thus effectively removing them from the conspiracy. This is far cheaper than imprisonment, and thousands of times as eff

        • by ganjadude (952775)
          anyone else find it a little ironic that a man named miranda was stopped and stripped of his rights??
      • by 1s44c (552956)

        You hope that the same system that allows police murder will prevent police theft and 9 hours of interrogation?

        The UK police have done far worse and got away with it.

      • by digitig (1056110)

        An abuse of the law has been brought to light and now those responsible need to simply say "terrorism" and the government will roll over.

        FTFY.

    • by arisvega (1414195)

      [..] and one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'

      This, even in the slim chance that is the truth, is absolutely no excuse. They should at least try to act responsible by cleaning after their own mess.

    • by 1s44c (552956)

      Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

      They are idiots because they believed that police powers would be only used for the purpose they intended. Now the idiots have given the thugs these extra powers they will never be revoked and the thugs will start begging for even more powers to harass the innocent.

    • by ackthpt (218170)

      Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots? If a law can be abused, it will be abused. No exceptions.

      See, this is the point most people miss - you only know when a law, any law, is abused when someone who cares whether it has been abused knows about it. Until that point you could detain, beat, torture anyone you want. That this doesn't happen more often speaks well of a society and those who are in place to serve and protect it.

      • by Hatta (162192)

        See, this is the point most people miss - you only know when a law, any law, is abused when someone who cares whether it has been abused knows about it

        I guarantee you, every traveler who has been detained against his will knows and cares about it.

        That this doesn't happen more often speaks well of a society and those who are in place to serve and protect it.

        No, what would speak well of society is when every abuse of rights gets the same degree of outrage we see today.

      • That this doesn't happen more often speaks well of a society and those who are in place to serve and protect it.

        Either that or we just don't know about it because it happens to people that are undesirable that don't get much sympathy in the media.

    • It just seems typical of politicians today. It often seems like they've forgotten their history, so they repeat it over and over again.

      "You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered." -- Lyndon B. Johnson

    • by UnknownSoldier (67820) on Monday August 19, 2013 @02:04PM (#44609481)

      > Are they idiots, or do they think we are idiots?

      Both. You do realize the answer is not mutually exclusive, right? :-(

      Government is an _extension_ of the people. If the people are too smegging lazy to demand accountability from their elected officials because they are too busy watching (un)reality TV then the people are 50% to blame.

  • by Karl Cocknozzle (514413) <kcocknozzle@hotma i l . com> on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:40PM (#44608527) Homepage

    one of the MPs involved in passing the anti-terrorism legislation used for the detention has said: 'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'"

    Of course you weren't: In fact, you weren't thinking about the potential for abuse at all when you passed this bill because even though you were warned by civil libertarians before the passage of the bill that such abuse was not only likely but inevitable, you were more afraid of the quivering masses of voters you believed would spend the next decade hiding under their sofas waiting for the end of the world to worry about such pleasantries. "This is war!" you told us, at the time.

    Choke, now, on your own lack of foresight.

    When the human race eventually gets around to causing its own extinction it will undoubtedly be caused by a total lack of foresight.

    • by jkflying (2190798) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:55PM (#44608675)

      Even better:

      Ms Cooper said the situation must be "investigated and clarified urgently", adding: "The public support for these powers must not be endangered by a perception of misuse."

      So, it's the public perception that's an issue here, not the misuse of powers. Interesting Ms Cooper, interesting. Do you have anything else to add?

      • In politics, it seems like perception is everything. Politicians don't care about substance, but they care about looking like they care about substance. They don't actually want to do anything for fear of what they did negatively impacting their PR but they also don't want to be seen as do-nothings. In other words, in politics, it's all about the spin.

        So this politician is just fearing that the spin will "go wrong" since that's what politicians care about. Meanwhile, the rest of us don't care about the

        • by Acapulco (1289274)

          Perception doesn't seem to be everything. It IS everything

          As someone told me once, politics or ars politica, is the art of negotiation. I would venture a guess that when negotiating something that's not directly "yours" i.e. on behalf of someone else (the people) perception is king. If you can fool your oponent into perceiving something as you would like it to be, you have much more leverage than if you don't. Lather, rinse and repeat and you have politicians choosing their words very very carefully, with t

      • by Spad (470073) <slashdot @ s p a d . c o.uk> on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:08PM (#44608817) Homepage

        You've misread her statement.

        As far as she's concerned, there has not been any misuse (even though they're admitting they know nothing about the specifics of this case), therefore any perception of such would be unwarranted and must be avoided.

      • Perhaps we need expanded powers to control dissemination of information prejudicial to public support for anti-terrorism powers... That seems like the correct solution.
    • by mmcxii (1707574)
      Choke, now, on your own lack of foresight.

      Choke on your own lack of foresight. Any "rage" coming from establish political entities is nothing more than pandering with absolutely no intentions of righting these wrongs. Just like how the left in the US howled with anger at the Patriot Act who are now tight lipped since it has become a tool of the Obama administration. The right will be no different if they take power in the next election. They'll cry foul today and abuse the law tomorrow.

      We will be bogged
  • by CohibaVancouver (864662) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:42PM (#44608535)
    I don't know what the laws are in Britain, but whenever an incident like this occurs in Canada, the response from The Man is always the same: "We cannot comment on this specific incident in order to protect the privacy of the individual in question" - Even though the "individual in question" is happily waiving their privacy in order to the story out there.
    • In the government's defence though privacy is a little insane in Canada. My wife tried to pay our phone bill when I was away on business one time without internet access and, because I had not listed her on the account, they refused to let her pay it over the phone despite the fact that she knew the amount and was calling from the very phone associated with the account. When I got back I explained to them that whenever ANYONE calls up and wants to pay off any part of my phone bill that they should please le
  • Reuters lies (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Greenwald has not threatened to be more aggressive with his reporting regarding the UK secret services and to release more documents about their activities. Reuters made that up out of whole cloth, go read his actual words.

  • Can't wait ... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:54PM (#44608657) Homepage

    I can't wait to hear how someone is going to justify use of terror laws to detain and question the partner of a journalist.

    From what I've seen of the news coverage of this, this is pretty egregious and probably somewhat indefensible.

    This is just more over-reach by government agencies who think they can do anything they want -- and quite possibly in response to a direct request from the US to put pressure on the journalist involved.

    • by Scutter (18425)

      So, the only way to get our representatives to take note of civil rights abuses is to have them affect a protected class. I wonder how I get myself classified as a journalist?

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        So, the only way to get our representatives to take note of civil rights abuses is to have them affect a protected class.

        Ideally, directly apply all of the laws they pass to them and their families first and see if they get it.

        That they're now acting like it's a shock this law could be abused ... well, that's either posturing, or evidence they weren't listening.

        But taking the partner of a journalist and detaining and interviewing based on terrorism laws should be blatant enough to make them notice -- they s

      • by RabidReindeer (2625839) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:14PM (#44608899)

        So, the only way to get our representatives to take note of civil rights abuses is to have them affect a protected class. I wonder how I get myself classified as a journalist?

        Oh stop fussing. Innocent people have nothing to worry about.

    • This is just more over-reach by government agencies who think they can do anything they want -- and quite possibly in response to a direct request from the US to put pressure on the journalist involved.

      I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that we (USA) put him on the watch list just to screw with him. I'd be willing to bet a few more folks in his circle of friends are on the same list.
      • Re:Can't wait ... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Hatta (162192) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:10PM (#44608845) Journal

        Laura Poitras, who also received the Snowden leaks, has had this exact experience. Her 2006 film, "My Country, My Country", about Iraqis living under American occupation earned her a spot on the terrorist watch list. Since 2006, she's been detained at the border around 40 times [democracynow.org].

        • I'm somewhat heartened that you've been posting the same kinds of comments for years and have recently started to attract serious mod points. Keep up the good work.

    • by Aguazul2 (2591049)

      NSA and friends are playing by their own ugly rules, which serve noone but them. The "Bourne" series is looking ever more realistic. We should consider ourselves fortunate that they choose to keep to the laws that they had put in place, and don't just shoot on sight anyone they don't like. Will we look back on this as the beginning of something very much worse? First they came for the journalists, and we said nothing ...

    • well, apparently Miranda's trip was covered by the Guardian and he was bringing some of the stolen Snowden docs to and from Poitras in Germany. this is according to the NYT, quoting Greenwald himself.

      so it's not like he was on vacation and getting harassed merely because his partner was embarrassing the US or something. ferrying stolen classified documents through the UK is likely to get you detained if they know what's going on.

      likewise, Greenwald brags that some of the docs he got from Snowden includes in

      • by geoskd (321194)

        what did the guy expect?

        He expected exactly what he got: A chance to publicly drag the various and sundry problems with the terrorism laws out and expose them to the light of day. He expected to be stopped, he expected to be searched, knowing they would find nothing, and wanted the opportunity to make a big deal out of it. Our various governments are either stupid enough to fall for it, or are so arrogant in their new found powers that they just don't care anymore.

  • by gr8_phk (621180) on Monday August 19, 2013 @12:56PM (#44608681)

    those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind

    That's what happens when you write legislation with a specific problem in mind that you want a nice knee-jerk reaction for. Then people point out the issues or possible abuses and you say "but that's not what this is for". Dumbass, it's not what you wanted that matters, it's what you actually wrote down and made into law that counts.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Did anyone read David Miranda's rights before they arrested him?

    • Did anyone read David Miranda's rights before they arrested him?

      this happened in england so no miranda rights they may have some other equivalent IANAL and most certainly not a British lawyer or soliciter or whatever they are called there.

  • 22 comments and not one joke about his Miranda Rights?

    • Perhaps because there are no "Miranda Rights" in Britain?

    • by jittles (1613415)

      22 comments and not one joke about his Miranda Rights?

      Last I checked, Miranda Rights are a US thing, not a UK thing. I would also not be surprised if Miranda rights were limited at the US Border. I think you are required by law to answer certain specific questions about your origin and destination, and probably about your personal effects as well.

  • and if you can't square them, squash them. -- Harold Wilson (of the press)
  • by nbauman (624611) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:11PM (#44608863) Homepage Journal

    Did he spend the entire 7 hours saying, "I don't know how to answer that question until I speak to my lawyer"?

    In the U.S., you could do that.

    Unless the interrogators violate the Constitution, and they would never do such a thing.

    • by threaded (89367)

      Under this, and several other pieces of legislation, he is not allowed access to a lawyer.

    • by oxdas (2447598) on Monday August 19, 2013 @03:08PM (#44610167)

      Under the law, he is not entitled to an attorney. Furthermore, if he refuses to answer a question, under this law, it is a crime. The law is currently being challenged in the EU courts.

    • by bheading (467684)

      Terrorism Act (2000) Schedule 7 Paragraph 18 states that if you fail to "comply with a duty imposed under this schedule" you are committing an offence.

      Refusing to answer questions until legal counsel arrive may well be taken to be a refusal to comply. But I guess the courts would have to decide that.

  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:12PM (#44608869) Journal

    I want to see a new law, named after him, which protects everyone's rights in the UK against such detention. That way everyone in the UK will be a beneficiary of this new "Miranda Rights" law. Of course, it should differ from the Miranda Rights in the US in fundamental ways so as to cause the most confusion possible. Especially in internet discussions.

    • by mcmonkey (96054)

      I want to see a new law, named after him, which protects everyone's rights in the UK against such detention. That way everyone in the UK will be a beneficiary of this new "Miranda Rights" law. Of course, it should differ from the Miranda Rights in the US in fundamental ways so as to cause the most confusion possible. Especially in internet discussions.

      There should be a new law--"Miranda Rights"--but named after Carmen Miranda.

      • There should be a new law--"Miranda Rights"--but named after Carmen Miranda.

        Yes. they should be required to Carmen Mirandize everyone they arrest. A fruitful idea. My hat's off to you.

        ps. Don't drive like my brother.

  • I think it was his mistake. He should have voice his Miranda's rights, to remain silent and not incriminate himself.
  • Sophist's choice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kruach aum (1934852) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:13PM (#44608893)
    "'those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind.'" demonstrating that pretending to be retarded is preferable to accepting responsibility for your actions when you're an MP
  • bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nitehawk214 (222219) on Monday August 19, 2013 @01:26PM (#44609027)

    those of us who were part of passing this legislation certainly would not have expected it to be used in a case of this kind

    Bullshit, fuck you, bullshit.

    That is the biggest lie I have heard all week. This is exactly what this legislation is designed to do: Make it possible to utterly destroy the friends and family of anyone that dares speak out against the regime. Mr Miranda (how ironic is it that someone named Miranda had his rights so obviously trampled upon), is lucky to not have been secretly imprisoned. Everyone even remotely involved signing the order for his detainment should be jailed.

Receiving a million dollars tax free will make you feel better than being flat broke and having a stomach ache. -- Dolph Sharp, "I'm O.K., You're Not So Hot"

Working...