Too bad Jusben1369 is getting downvoted. He made a point. It's also that the Terrorism Act of 2000 defines Terrorism very very broadly [1]
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial] or ideological cause.
It looks like the officers in London did act according to law. If that law makes sense or not is an entirely other discussion.
Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
I think it's pretty clear that while the people involved may have been trying to advance a political cause, they weren't intent on using violence or destruction to do it.
What has David Miranda done which violates that law? For that matter I can't see what Greenwald has done to violate it either, unless all journalists are on now co-conspirators with their sources if they report anything which the government would prefer to keep secret.
It's an awful law, is far too broad, and should be repealed, but even accepting that law the regulator and many MPs have serious concerns that this was illegal.
Laws are not black and white. If they were, judges had a far easier job. Laws are made by the legislative and are interpreted by not only the judiciary branch but also by the executive branch.
What has David Miranda done which violates that law?
Miranda was not charged with anything, he did not violate a law. He was brought in for questioning and seized of his property. This is allowed since the law is aweful and can be interpreted this way. If it was unlawful the prosecution could prosecute the police that did this. They likely won't since the law is fuzzy.
Again, I'm not supporting any of this. I'm just trying to shed some light into this since most comments her on HN are simply complaining about UK/US without digging deeper and asking themselves why this is possible and why nobody has been charged with anything yet.
He was brought in for questioning and seized of his property.
On what basis? The Home Office guidelines clearly state that questioning and seizure are to be used only in cases where terrorism is suspected. David Miranda is clearly not a terrorist, nor is he associated with terrorists. To quote the guidelines:
Schedule 7 powers are to be used solely for the purpose of ascertaining if the person examined is or has been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism. The powers must not be used to stop and question persons for any other purpose. An examination must cease and the examinee must be informed that it has ended once it has been ascertained that the person examined does not appear to be or to have been concerned in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism.
Does the law say somewhere that they can question anyone for any purpose? If not then this was clearly illegal.
The problem is that you have been ingrained the picture of terrorism to be a bomb blowing up, killing people or crashing planes. This is how probably 99% of all people would define terrorism (me too). However, laws cannot just talk about a common word without defining it. Everything needs to be made precise. That is what this law is doing in their very first sections. It defines what terrorism includes. And I quoted that in my first reply which you may re-read. It does define terrorism differently.
As has been noted by others, Miranda had potentially national security related material which can be interpreted as (a) or (b) of above.
You misquoted that law by quoting only one section of two which define terrorism. Go back and read the rest of it and you will understand why you are wrong, or see the quote from symmetry below.
With wording like that, it's very possible that some people could interpret speech to be a tool of terror.
Bona fide investigative journalism certainly can satisfy the criteria for (b) and (c). Is there anywhere where they define the nature of the threat? Does it just have to be "perceived" as a threat or does the threat need to be physical as opposed to informational?
Is there anywhere where they define the nature of the threat?
Section 2, quoted by symmetry above - 1 a,b and c must be satisfied before terrorism is applicable. Satisfying 1a requires satisfying at least one item from section 2, which is a list of possible actions which can be considered terrorism. Endangering life, serious violence against people or property, risk to health or safety etc.
Far too broad of course, but still not applicable to Miranda.
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political, religious [, racial] or ideological cause.
It looks like the officers in London did act according to law. If that law makes sense or not is an entirely other discussion.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2000