And why was he detained under anti-terror laws at Heathrow?
And which slimy toe-rag authorised or ordered it?
David Miranda is the partner of Glen Greenwald, the brilliant investigative journalist who has helped Edward Snowden’s revelations reach the world’s media.
“David Miranda, who lives with Glen Greenwald, was returning from a trip to Berlin when he was stopped by officers at 8.30am and informed that he was to be questioned under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. The controversial law, which applies only at airports, ports and border areas, allows officers to stop, search, question and detain individuals.
The 28-year-old was held for nine hours, the maximum the law allows before officers must release or formally arrest the individual. According to official figures, most examinations under schedule 7 - over 97% - last under an hour, and only one in 2,000 people detained are kept for more than 6 hours.
Miranda was released without charge, but officials confiscated electronics equipment including his mobile phone, laptop, camera, memory sticks, DVDs and games consoles. (my emphasis)
Since 5 June, Greenwald has written a series of stories revealing the NSA's electronic surveillance programmes, detailed in thousands of files passed to him by whistleblower Edward Snowden. The Guardian has also published a number of stories about blanket electronic surveillance by Britain's GCHQ, also based on documents from Snowden.
While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian.
"This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process," Greenwald said. "To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, is clearly intended to send a message of intimidation to those of us who have been reporting on the NSA and GCHQ. The actions of the UK pose a serious threat to journalists everywhere.
"But the last thing it will do is intimidate or deter us in any way from doing our job as journalists. Quite the contrary: it will only embolden us more to continue to report aggressively." Guardian 18/8/13
Time to find out some more facts. Which chinless creep in the security services thought this would be a good idea? Did they get ministerial approval and if so which gutless wonder engaged in defending our democracy by attacking the messenger - or more accurately in this case, the messenger’s partner?
Those of you who think all this does not matter and that it is the blethering of the liberal chattering classes think again. These stooges of the elite are not concerned about rights, wrongs, hard-won freedoms and privacy. They have masters to serve.
Nothing to hide? Nothing to fear? Bollocks.