David Miranda: 'They said I would be put in jail if I didn't cooperate' | Hacker News Reader

David Miranda: 'They said I would be put in jail if I didn't cooperate'

theguardian.com

125 pointsm125 comments

Mr. Miranda: They were threatening me all the time and saying I would be put in jail if I didn't co-operate. (...) They got me to tell them the passwords for my computer and mobile phone. They said I was obliged to answer all their questions and used the words 'prison' and 'station' all the time. (...) I don't even know if it was documents that I was carrying. It could have been for the movie that Laura is working on.

So he did give his passwords (there's really a law in UK for that) and he was carrying something, exactly as the interrogators expected.

From what I understand, under the Terrorism Act you're legally compelled to cooperate with the questioning and you're not allowed to remain silent so I have no doubt that those threats were real and that those questioning Mr. Miranda intended to act on said threats if they saw fit.

If there was any encrypted material for which he didn't have the keys, as far as I understand legally they had enough to keep him. But then they probably worried how they would look like in public if it turns out to be only the preview of the film. He's still lucky he spent only 9 hours there.

Or maybe he was lucky if the material was prepared with:

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

The public-relations disaster that would come from arresting Greenwald's partner on the charge "he wouldn't answer our questions" would make the current flap look small, I think.

Silence is always an option.

I'm no lawyer and I have no specific experience with the law in the UK, but I think the best path here is to shut the hell up and not answer anything until you get a lawyer. He was foolish to turn one down. You may be legally compelled to answer, but the consequences of your silence ultimately gets decided by a judge. I'd rather take my chances that the judge would rule it was a misuse of the Terrorism Act than trust some random cops with my passwords. And even if I were to fold under pressure, I'd do so with a lawyer's advice and not just because some goons threaten me.

At least, that's how I'd hope I'd behave, and that it wouldn't land me in Guantanamo without access to a lawyer or due process. I can certainly see how this kind of aggressive police tactic scares the shit out of people, and they may not know their options or be in a position to think about them clearly. And regardless of what the optimal approach was for Miranda, clearly this was a huge violation of his rights. "Know your rights" isn't a substitute for "they shouldn't abuse them".

But still: when you're detained and you're not sure what to do, default to silence.

You do realize under these laws, he was:

1) Not entitled to a lawyer

2) Not entitled to silence

Rights you say... what rights?

According to the article he was offered a lawyer said no. You should basically never turn that down.

Also, if someone tells you that you don't have a right to silence, continue being silent. I know that's easy for me to say from where I'm sitting, but I'm pretty confident it's good advice, even in Heathrow Airport. At least give yourself a chance to beat the system.

I believe he was only allowed access to a state provided lawyer. Whether refusing this was a good/bad move is anybodies guess.

They quite clearly denied him access/conversation to his own choice of lawyer. I can't find a clear list of rights allowed to a person held under the act (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7).

It's quite clear from the above who is fully in control and who isn't though - silence will lead to prison and/or a fine.

He asked to talk to Glenn, who is a lawyer and they refused. Could he really trust that the lawyer they had queued up for him would be on his side?

OT , but it's ironic that Mr. Miranda doesn't have Miranda rights.

I read a source indicating that that's not quite true. Rather, if you don't answer questions at the time, the fact that you didn't can be introduced as evidence in trial later on. I.e., if the police pick you up and question you about a murder and you don't tell them your alibi, the government is free to mention that in court to imply that your alibi was created after the arrest.

This is explained in the standard British police caution:

> 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.

There are, I believe (IANAL) quite specific rules around the use of 'adverse inference'[1], which is the way in which your lack of answers can be used.

On reading through the CPS guidance linked, the sheer complexity and number of potentially critical missteps someone unaware of the details could make is enlightening.

Say Nothing. Get a Lawyer. (Cue "Never talk to the police" youtube link... I wonder if there is a comprehensive UK equivalent?)

[1] http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/adverse_inferences/

Is it just me, or has the war of the state against the people started in earnest?

I wonder if any of the law enforcement officials detaining Miranda and threatening him with jail if he didn't cooperate fully appreciated the irony of his last name at the time.

Not really, since the term you are referencing is not used in the UK.

Not from US, so I'm not sure I get it. Are you referring to this?

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

On US television it's very common to hear something along the lines of

"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you"

when someone gets arrested. There's a page for it on tvtropes[1]. Obviously it's a "real thing" as well, but Miranda Rights have definitely entered US popular culture because of how often the above lines are heard on TV.

I'm pretty sure that that's what TallGuyShort was referring to, and I know that the thought popped into my head as well.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MirandaRights

edit sorry, deleted instead of editing because I'm bad at computers.

> Miranda Rights have definitely entered US popular culture

It came full circle. As part of a refusal[1] to overrule Miranda back in 2000, the Supreme Court noted "Miranda has become embedded in routine police practice to the point where the warnings have become part of our national culture.". Rehnquist even opened his oral announcement by reciting the warnings.

America without Miranda is virtually unthinkable. Tragically, there's no equivalent cultural reminder of the 4th Amendment.

[1] http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1999/1999_99_5525

Yes, that is correct. My apologies - I am not originally from the US either but I've heard it on a lot of police-themed movies, shows and games, and I assumed it was more widely understood.

This story makes me sad. It is egregious to use an anti-terrorism statute against an innocent and obviously non-terrorist citizen in this manner. Saying I expected better from the UK would be an understatement.

Can we all agree now that the slippery slope is real and had been slid down?

> "I knew my country would protect me, and I believe in my husband and knew that he would do anything to help me."

Can the media please start saying "Greenwald's husband" instead of "Greenwald's partner"? They're married, and "partner" has a business connotation that's just confusing in this context when you don't know the history of the couple.

Glenn referred to him as "my partner" himself. Maybe this couple prefers that term?

Source: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-m...

He also used the word "spouse" in some tweets. Doesn't look like there's a consensus - not that it really matters.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com