> Having read that, I now believe the British were justified in detaining Miranda, though doing so for 9 hours was clearly excessive.
Much of the controvery kicked off by this is that they used rights that are supposed to be used purely for direct terrorism-related investigations. As one of the Guardian articles so succinctly put it, this is absolutely unacceptable, unless somebody actually and officially declares journalism terrorism.
I agree, it was an abuse of law. But stopping and detaining him temporarily seems justifiable, especially as he is not a journalist, doesn't enjoy any protections other than the ones any normal travellers get and was carrying some of the leaked NSA docs.
In that light using the terrorism law and holding him for 9 hours was a brain dead move as well.
He was acting on behalf of a bona fide investigative journalist and his journey was paid for by The Guardian. That should be enough to afford him the same protection as a journalist.
What if he had not been the partner of GG, but instead just your average joe paid courier being paid for the delivery of primary source evidence to be used by the staff of the news organization? Would the contents of the package not enjoy the same protection that it would were it being carried by one of the new organization's journalists?
I agree that it was braindead, however, there is a great deal of deliberation involved. Any other form of "meeting" (to be grossly and dangerously euphemistic) would have involved lawyers and probably also consular assistance. A misuse (or, if you prefer, abuse) of anti-terror legislation is the only possible way to intimidate, interrogate and hold a foreign national who has not (and does not) currently commit a crime on British soil.
"Stopping and detaining" was exactly the one option British authorities could not use, because that would have put him outside the law-free zone that is the airport. That's why they chose another way, and that's why they get, perhaps unexpectedly, a great deal of backlash from this.
Much of the controvery kicked off by this is that they used rights that are supposed to be used purely for direct terrorism-related investigations. As one of the Guardian articles so succinctly put it, this is absolutely unacceptable, unless somebody actually and officially declares journalism terrorism.