White House: US Was Given 'Heads Up' Before David Miranda Detained - GuardianUK

[WillyT]

White House: US was given 'heads up' before David Miranda detained
Spokesman Joshua Earnest says 'We had an indication it was likely to occur, but it's not something we requested'
Sparrow and Adam Gabbatt - theguardian.com
Monday 19 August 2013 14.08 EDT

<snip>

I've just transcribed Earnest's remarks when he was pressed to define the nature of the 'heads up' the US was given re David Miranda being detained. Asked if the 'heads up' was given before Miranda was stopped, Earnest said:

"It probably wouldn't be a heads up if they had told us about it after the detainment."

A reporter then asked: "So it's fair to say say they told you they were going to do this when they saw that he was on the manifest?"

"I think that is an accurate interpretation of what a heads up is," Earnest said.

CNN White House correspondent Jessica Yellin then quizzed Earnest as to whether the US obtained information from the electronic equipment seized by the US government:

"I'm just not in a position to talk to you about the conversations between British law enforcement officials and American law enforcement officials," Earnest said.

Yellin followed up: "But you can't rule out that the US has obtained this material."

"I'm not in a position to do that right now," Earnest said...

<snip>

More: http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2013/aug/19/glenn-greenwald-partner-detained-live-reaction

[GeorgeGist]

1. Least untruthful rings a bell.

[Savannahmann]

2. Well, there be the link.

The link that the apologists swore didn't exist.

[geek tragedy]

4. It does not prove what you seem to think it proves . . . nt

[sabrina 1]

12. The UK government has been a puppet of the US since Blair lied his country into war for Bush.

The whole world has referred to the UK as the US 'Lapdog' for years. Funny too that Democrats were generally in agreement on this for nearly a decade as there was no way to deny it.

So, we don't need any confirmation. This is the third major 'job' regarding the silencing of journalists that the UK has done for the US. They are known as the US 'Proxy' Government, they do stuff like this that would get the US in trouble under the 1st Amendment. Friends helping friends.

But it is always nice to get confirmation, which we Dems usually do considering how right we have been about almost everything since Bush first began his occupation of the WH.

I have had many good times going back to my Republican adversaries who used the same old 'you don't know what you're talking about etc garbage, and bringing them the evidence to show how right we Liberals have been, and how tragically wrong they were.

[geek tragedy]

14. "we don't need any confirmation."

Yes, for you and yours assumptions and beliefs trump silly little things like facts and evidence.

[sabrina 1]

18. Lol, well once again, we have been proven right, because now we HAVE confirmation, do we not?

Some things are just facts. The fact that the UK is a puppet of the US is a well-established fact. So logic, for those who use it, tells us that when the UK does something as outrageous as detaining a family member of an American Journalist who has gone outside the 'rules' in a country where the media is so tightly controlled, they just might be doing it for their puppet masters.

We are all entitled to our opinions, mine are based on years of evidence of a fact. And once again, logic, based on facts, wins out.

The US was made aware of what they intended to and FAILED TO ask them not to do something this outrageous. Why did the US not try to protect one of its own journalists from this kind of persecution?? Brazil DID speak out on behalf of THEIR citizen. That is what democratic nations do on behalf of citizens who are being persecuted in other countries.

But the fact that the US did not do so says plainly that they shamefully approved of it.

QED, base your opinions on facts and you rarely go wrong.

[geek tragedy]

19. Miranda is not a US citizen.

The UK being a 'puppet' of the US is an opinion, not a fact.

[sabrina 1]

24. I didn't say he was. Thankfully his own government has registered their opinion on what was done

to him as a family member of an American journalist who has made the US Government angry by doing what journalists are supposed to do.

Lots of Brazilian citizens pass through Heathrow every day. Are they all being detained, or just the one who happens to be the partner of Greenwald, who is the real target of this violation of human rights.

Greenwald is being targeted for doing nothing more than his job as a journalist. And the US should have told the Brits they did not approve of what they were planning to do to his partner on their behalf in order to intimidate him.

But for that to happen, we will need a truly democratic government.

[Progressive dog]

17. "They are known as the US 'Proxy' Government," LOL

eom

[sabrina 1]

20. You didn't know that?? Wow!

[Progressive dog]

23. Nah, I don't frequent anti-USA websites. nt

[sabrina 1]

25. Neither do I. What does that have to do with it?

[Progressive dog]

28. Haven't seen it anywhere else.

When the Soviets had proxy governments, they maintained them with force. That is what a proxy government is, one controlled by outsiders, using force if necessary. Not surprisingly, the USA does not and has not used force against the UK. But you can continue to pretend you see this on real news sources if you want.

[sabrina 1]

41. Lol, the UK is a willing Proxy Government. They miss their old Impire and are more than willing to

tag along with the latest. There are more ways to entice proxies than with force. So call the 'partners in crime'. See Blair's blind support for Bush's illegal wars and see the lies he told to get his country into that war. At least over there, he did have to face some serious questioning, still going on btw.

Can you point us to a 'real news source'? I don't consider the Corporate Media a 'real news source' nor do a majority of the people of this planet. But what iyo is a 'real news source'?

[Progressive dog]

42. So this proxy stuff is all your imagination.

You don't even have a non-credible source.

[malaise]

35. The Poodle

[sabrina 1]

36. Lol, yes, how quickly people 'forget', well it's convenient to forget.

[malaise]

37. The entire mess on this planet is the result of Bush and Blair's lies

that led to that illegal invasion and occupation.

[sabrina 1]

39. Yes, the UK Puppet Government lied and lied for Bush. I remember it well. And no matter how

he was challenged on the lies, Blair never relented. I also remember the death of a Scientist who had ties to our own Judith Miller.

So much people have forgotten ... conveniently.

[malaise]

40. I refuse to forget

[Cali_Democrat]

3. "We had an indication it was likely to occur but it's not something we requested"

Interesting.

There goes the theory that the US ordered the UK to do this.

[WillyT]

6. It Is Interesting...

I wonder why we didn't tell them not to.

Seeing the monumental PR problem it's creating, one wonders if the stop was worth the price.

[geek tragedy]

11. "I wonder why we didn't tell them not to."

1) They're a sovereign country;

2) Miranda is not a US citizen, so they have no standing to object;

3) They were not terribly disturbed at the Brits doing the dirty work.

[sabrina 1]

13. They should have told them not to do that. It is a violation beyond belief and an abuse of

the now totally controversial 'terror laws' that the US Government more than anyone else, should have condemned. Publicly if necessary since this law has been extremely controversial in Britain because of the potential and actual abuses it generated by out of control despots, such as what just happened.

By not condemning it, they approved of it. So yes, the suspicions were correct, the UK's puppet government acting on behalf of the US once again, as they did with Assange, and Wikileaks and Bush et al.

Shameful that our government would not take a stand against such abuses of laws that never should have existed in the first place.

[DirkGently]

15. Wouldn't be an order. It would be an "understanding."

They wouldn't call with a "heads up" if they didn't think they were, at the very least, acting in U.S. interests, or seeking U.S. assistance or support, or offering to share the fruits of the abusive detention.

[Hydra]

16. How about this part?

Yellin followed up: "But you can't rule out that the US has obtained this material."

"I'm not in a position to do that right now," Earnest said...

Oh, so someone is given a "heads up" and they said "After you get done illegally detaining him...can we have his stuff?"

Sounds totally above board and not fishy at all.

[Recursion]

30. The detention was not illegal

You can't both quote the law under which the detention was carried out and call the detention illegal.

[Hydra]

31. The detention is illegal as the law is written

There are listed preconditions that Miranda doesn't fall under, unless the UK would like to put those out there.

If I were them, I'd get busy spinning.

[Recursion]

32. Nope. Having a bus schedule is enough to trigger the law, pretty much

And the police have full discretion over its application.

It's a really bad law.

[Hydra]

43. It's not a badly written law

It's just particularly police statish:

2 Power to stop, question and detain

(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).

(4)An examining officer may exercise his powers under this paragraph whether or not he has grounds for suspecting that a person falls within section 40(1)(b).

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/11/schedule/7

The beauty of it is, the soul of law is in the details. Basically, yes they are legally allowed to question him(for any reason), but they are supposed to for the purposes of determining he is a terrorist, and hold him for no longer than required to do so. That, and the lawyer thing could be sticky for them if he didn't refuse all legal counsel(just theirs).

We'll see how it goes, but this was a great example of how the terrorism laws are intended to work and why we have them- in order to ignore the normal legal process.

[Recursion]

51. Well, I didn't mean it was incompetently written

I just meant it's a bad law that is being accurately executed.

[Hydra]

56. Ya, I got the spirit of that

And I agree- the law is so open you could drive a zeppelin through it with room to spare as the police. On the victim side? About as little wiggle room as the bars at gitmo. I posted what I could find- there is a code of conduct for the main terror bill where a person must be allowed to contact someone(obviously Miranda was able to), be offered legal counsel(your own or theirs) and a copy of the code of conduct.

They could argue that because he was not actually arrested that he did not have those rights...but they'll be too busy explaining why Miranda is a terrorist, since the spirit of the law is that yes you have these absurd powers, but you're only allowed to use them in the pursuit of terrorism(and confiscate items therein).

We'll see if we're all considered terrorists by the law, I would guess.

[sabrina 1]

38. Then he must have been a suspected terrorist? Because that is the only way it would have been

legal to detain him UNDER THAT TERROR law! Which was designed, and has always been very controversial even for what it was supposed to be for) to detain suspected terrorists. Where does it say in the law that Partners, Family members, of journalists should be detained???

[Hydra]

45. Section 2(4) actually

As I posted above. They are allowed to search without any justification...but they aren't supposed to hold longer than necessary.

It's a good example of how you can have blank check laws with no meaningful protections.

[Recursion]

52. There's nothing in the law requiring the person be a terrorist in the normal sense of the word

The fact that he has a bus schedule is enough.

It's a reason it's such a bad law.

[sabrina 1]

55. Then let's hope this will be the catalyst for finally getting rid of it. I know it was extremely

controversial and I hope those who opposed it will now be able to use this outrageous incident to gain momentum for ending it.

The Brits were always good at inventing laws to cover crimes they knew they were going to commit. For some reason the British Empire always wanted to have that 'legal' stamp on their crimes against their victims. Which is why their laws became unenforceable around the Colonies after a while and they eventually lost their Empire. Coming from a culture that was a victim of the British Empire, it doesn't surprise me to see the remnants of the old Empire rear its ugly head.

I am glad Miranda's Government has had the decency to stand up against these abuses against one of their citizens.

I wish our citizens could count on our Government to stand up for THEIR rights. But we have a long, long way to go and a rough road to overcome the regression that has been occurring when it comes to the ideal of Democracy that we had begun to make progress on.

Meantime other parts of the world make me envious as they establish their democracies after decades of US supported Dictatorships. Things change, they will change here also because they have to.

[leftstreet]

5. Did Snowden allegedly steal documents from the UK?

This story is so confusing

I thought it was just NSA

Why would the UK have an interest in detaining Miranda?

[CJCRANE]

7. The documents released so far also contained information about the UK. nt

[leftstreet]

9. Has the UK filed any charges?

[sabrina 1]

21. The docs did not belong to the UK, unless the NSA is a British organization.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

26. The actual docs show, across the top,

the initials of Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, Canada, and maybe one other country, don't remember. I do remember finding that interesting. It's like we're all running one intel service, as it were. This probably goes beyond merely an "understanding".

[Recursion]

29. It has to do with the ORCON endorsement

It's like we're all running one intel service, as it were.

Well, it's not that integrated by any means.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

44. What's ORCON??? n/t

[Recursion]

50. Originator controlled

Usually ORCON documents are also marked NOFORN (no foreign personnel) but for ones that affect multiple allies they are given endorsements to see a document, like the ones at the top of this.

What's really confusing is sometimes you'll see a document both stamped NOFORN and endorsed US/UK/CA/AU/NZ. Which is weird.

[sabrina 1]

34. Globalism. What does it really mean??

Yes, it is interesting. We don't know a fraction of what they've been up to, and they sure are terrified that we might find out.

[WillyT]

8. They Are Linked And Do Each Others Bidding...

Go here: http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/guardian-nsa-pays-millions-uk-spies-d

[leftstreet]

10. ...

Thanks for that

[woo me with science]

22. We are facing tyranny now.

Free nations require a free press. These actions toward journalists and their families are the behaviors of totalitarian rule. They cannot be permitted to stand.

More and more it becomes clear that we are at a grave place in our history. Corporate fascism is no longer a hypothetical. It is wielding power now and assaulting the very roots of freedom and privacy for millions. And a deeply disturbing propaganda machine is in place to attempt to normalize it all.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

27. Yeah, I draw the line at abusing journalists.

Sullivan's drawing of an equivalency between Putin and the West was a bit overwrought, but we are definitely not where we were even just a few years ago. This is nuts.

[Autumn]

46. You think that's nuts? Check this one out.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023491854

[Benton D Struckcheon]

47. That's completely crazed.

Read the whole thing, the legal judgment at the end there at least gives me some hope. The ongoing problem with all of this is that there are all kinds of outstanding legal judgments justifying all this from pre-Internet/PC/smartphone days. As that article points out, we don't seem to have any judges who understand the difference between a pen register that records a single person's activity on a phone switch, and the sweep of metadata now being done electronically by the NSA. Or who seem to care.

[Autumn]

48. Did you watch the interview of her that was posted in the thread

It's surreal that our country would do that to a citizen.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

49. Just watched it.

Thinking there has got to be a way to stop this sort of thing. I was amazed when I read about the UK's law, but at least that law has a time limit. Theoretically, these guys could hold her indefinitely and only a writ of habeas corpus would release her (assuming that one isn't also suspended at the border???), as I don't know that this is done according to any written out statute like the one in the UK. Not a lawyer, so I don't know what time limit is generally accepted as being unreasonable to hold someone without charges.
Truly extraordinary stuff.

[msanthrope]

33. Now? Are you sure it's now? nt

[WillyT]

54. Yeah... t's Pretty Much Now...

Good luck to you.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

53. And, responded with a "Thumbs Up".