“Publication in the Guardian is not instigating terrorism.”

Steve Watson
Infowars.com
Aug 21, 2013

One of the authors of the UK’s Terrorism Act of 2000 has gone on record saying he believes that the British authorities, with the backing of the Home Office and knowledge of the White House, have acted illegally in detaining the partner of the journalist embroiled in the Edward Snowden/NSA stand off.

Lord Falconer, the former lord chancellor and the man who introduced the Terrorism Act in the House of Lords, wrote a piece for The Guardian today outlining the fact that the Metropolitan police had no legal basis to detain David Miranda under the legislation.

Falconer noted that the law is very clear cut, detailing that under the bill police may only hold someone in order to ascertain if they are involved in terrorism.

“I am very clear that this does not apply, either on its terms or in its spirit, to Mr Miranda.” Falconer wrote.

“Officials knew Miranda was no terrorist and they held him anyway.” the peer, who also served as solicitor general, states.

Video: Miranda’s lawyers intend to pursue legal action against the UK government.

Falconer also slammed the UK Home Secretary Theresa May and the Home Office for defending the police action, and claiming that the Detention of Miranda under terror laws was justified because he had possession of stolen sensitive information.

Falconer said that the home secretary’s statement “is putting it too widely”.

“What schedule 7 (The specific section of the bill) allows an examining officer to do is to question somebody in order to determine whether he is somebody who is preparing, instigating or commissioning terrorism. Plainly Mr Miranda is not such a person.” Falconer writes.

“That section plainly doesn’t apply here” He continues. “What is happening is they are targeting Miranda because they believe that he may have information that has been obtained from [the US whistleblower Edward] Snowden.”

“The reason that doesn’t fall within schedule 7 is because: even assuming that they think there is material which has been obtained in breach of the Officials Secrets Act, the action of Miranda or anybody he is acting with could not be described as somebody concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.” the peer urges.

“You could not reasonably believe, if you were the state, that Miranda is commissioning or assisting somebody to commission terrorism, to prepare terrorism or to instigate terrorism.” he concludes.

Falconer added that while the word “instigate” is open to interpretation, what Miranda and Glenn Greenwald have become embroiled in is nothing to do with terrorism.

Pointing out the fact that the state is essentially equating journalistic practice with promoting terrorism, the peer said “it is important to understand the ramifications” of Theresa May’s justification.

“Publication in the Guardian is not instigating terrorism.” Falconer writes. “If it is obvious to the state the person detained is not a terrorist, the state must have some purpose other than determining whether he is a terrorist in using the power – and that would render the use of the power unlawful.”

Falconer warned that it is not within the power of the state to limit what journalists publish.

“The state may wish that journalists would not publish sensitive material, but it is up to journalists, not the state, to decide where to draw the line… The schedule 7 power is not given to restrain the use of information.”

“The state has exceeded its powers in this case. The sooner the courts make this clear, the better.” he concludes.

After initially refusing to respond to Falconer’s piece, The Home Secretary eventually said “It is absolutely right it is the duty of government to protect the public. It is absolutely right if the police believe that somebody has in their possession highly sensitive stolen information that could help terrorists, that could lead to a loss of lives – it is right that the police should act. I believe that schedule 7 of this act enables the police to do that. It gives them the framework for that.”

She also defended the physical destruction of The Guardian’s hard drives by government operatives, stating “Are you saying if [the] government believes there is information that is a potential danger to national security, that could be helpful to terrorists, that is being held potentially insecurely, that could fall into the wrong hands that government should not act on that? I take a different view.”

Following Lord Falconer’s statements, The Guardian also reported that one of the world’s leading press freedom watchdogs, the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists, has written to the British Prime Minister David Cameron, and his leading ministers, to inform them that they have abused anti-terror laws.

“The use of anti-terror laws to seize journalistic material from Miranda, partner and assistant to Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, is deeply troubling and not in keeping with the UK’s historic commitment to press freedom.” the letter, signed by Executive Director Joel Simon noted.

—————————————————————-

Steve Watson is the London based writer and editor for Alex Jones’ Infowars.com, and Prisonplanet.com. He has a Masters Degree in International Relations from the School of Politics at The University of Nottingham, and a Bachelor Of Arts Degree in Literature and Creative Writing from Nottingham Trent University.

The Emergency Election Sale is now live! Get 30% to 60% off our most popular products today!