This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/07/world/europe/lawyers-challenge-detention-of-greenwalds-partner-in-london.html

The article has changed 4 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Lawyers Challenge Detention of Greenwald’s Partner in London Lawyers Challenge Detention of Greenwald’s Partner in London
(about 1 hour later)
LONDON — Lawyers challenged on Wednesday the legality of the detention at Heathrow Airport in August of David Michael Miranda, the partner of the journalist Glenn Greenwald, who has been writing about the secret documents taken by a former analyst for the National Security Agency, Edward J. Snowden. LONDON — Lawyers challenged on Wednesday the legality of the temporary detention of David Michael Miranda, the partner of Glenn Greenwald, a journalist who has been writing about the secret documents taken by a former analyst for the National Security Agency, Edward J. Snowden.
Mr. Miranda, 28, was stopped while transiting from Berlin to Brazil and his computer, telephone and memory sticks were confiscated. They contained around 58,000 encrypted, secret files from the Snowden archive, the British government said. Mr. Miranda, 28, was held at Heathrow Airport in August for nine hours while on his way from Berlin to Brazil, and his computer, telephone and memory sticks were confiscated. They contained around 58,000 encrypted, secret files from the Snowden archive, the British government said.
British intelligence officials are still trying to decrypt all of the files to see exactly what Mr. Miranda was carrying, but have argued that the stolen documents and the stories written based on them have damaged national security and aided global terrorism. British intelligence officials are still trying to decrypt all of the files to see exactly what Mr. Miranda was carrying, but they have argued that the stolen documents and the stories written based on them have damaged national security and aided global terrorism.
Mr. Miranda had been traveling home to Brazil, where he lives with Mr. Greenwald, after visiting Germany, where he met with Laura Poitras, an American filmmaker who has worked with Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald on the N.S.A. stories. Mr. Miranda has said that he did not know the contents of what he was ferrying back to Brazil on a ticket paid for by The Guardian newspaper, for which Mr. Greenwald was then working. Mr. Miranda had been traveling home to Brazil, where he lives with Mr. Greenwald, after visiting Germany, where he met with Laura Poitras, an American filmmaker who has worked with Mr. Snowden and Mr. Greenwald on the N.S.A. articles. Mr. Miranda has saidhe did not know the contents of the files he was carrying.
Lawyers for Mr. Miranda challenged the legality of using counterterrorism powers at ports of entry in this case, arguing that the law was misused and Mr. Miranda’s fundamental rights were violated. Matthew Ryder, Mr. Miranda’s lawyer, argued that the case hinged on Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives officers the power to stop, question and detain people at ports such as airports even if wrongdoing is not suspected. In statements submitted to High Court in London on Wednesday, his lawyers challenged the legality of using counterterrorism powers at ports of entry in this case, arguing that the law was misused and that Mr. Miranda’s fundamental rights were violated. Matthew Ryder, Mr. Miranda’s lawyer, argued that the case hinged on Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, which gives officers the power to stop, question and detain people at ports even if wrongdoing is not suspected.
“If the court finds that such a power was used proportionally in seizing journalistic material in this way, we ask court then to consider if Schedule 7 is compatible with fundamental rights — in particular, the right to freedom of expression,” Mr. Ryder stated. “This case illustrates vividly why it is not compatible.” “If the court finds that such a power was used proportionally in seizing journalistic material in this way, we ask the court then to consider if Schedule 7 is compatible with fundamental rights — in particular, the right to freedom of expression,” Mr. Ryder stated. “This case illustrates vividly why it is not compatible.”