It is a new low for British "democracy" when those who seek to defend us against excessive surveillance are targeted by "anti-terrorist" powers (Greenwald's partner detained at Heathrow, 18 August). The problem is not who "really" is a terror suspect; rather, that these powers permit detention and questioning of individuals without any defined threshold of suspicion or need to give a reason. It is the only power in British law that gives police carte blanche to go fishing for information about political or religious activities or – as in this case – journalistic sources, in a way that gives the victim no right to silence or legal support. In fact, as your coverage correctly points out, it is an arrestable offence to refuse to answer any question, however unreasonable.
The proposals in the antisocial behaviour, crime and policing bill, to reduce the nine hours to six and allow access to a solicitor only after search and questioning has taken place, fail to address the Big Brother quality of these powers. There also seem to be no safeguards against unreasonable seizure of phones, computers or other property. This outrageous incident underlines the need to amend the bill drastically before it becomes law.
*Anne Gray*
London
• I have attended on several occasions to advise persons detained under schedules 7 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In my experience schedule 7 interviews are often conducted in a "no man's land" where the airport authority can override police and deny a lawyer access to their client if the lawyer does not happen to be carrying their passport with them (even if the lawyer can satisfy the police as to their identity). The lawyer has to attend in person since it is an imprisonable offence for the lawyer even to generally advise not to answer questions: ie the lawyer has to decide on a question-by-question basis what to advise. Not many experienced lawyers are able to attend at such short notice. Police are not bound to wait for the lawyer and on the outward leg of a journey a person detained is likely to be more anxious about missing their flight than waiting for legal advice or the implications of a carelessly worded reply. The police can and do use these factors to ask irrelevant questions.
*Name and address supplied*
• While the detention of David Miranda is scandalous, it is certainly not the first time this "anti-terrorism" legislation has been used for intimidation and investigation of political dissent. I have been detained twice when re-entering the UK. The first time was in early 2008, when I returned from a holiday in Germany with my then boyfriend. We were detained by the Met's anti-terrorism unit at St Pancras station. They questioned us about military bases, Nato and other related issues, as I was then working at War Resisters' International and involved in the preparation of an anti-Nato action in Brussels (organised publicly, with nonviolence guidelines). The second time was in 2011, on my way back from an anti-Nato meeting in Brussels. I was detained together with a fellow campaigner at Holyhead, this time by Welsh anti-terrorism police. While the detention must have been scary for David Miranda, I hope his case raises awareness about the wide-ranging abuse of anti-terrorism powers by police.
*Andreas Speck*
London
• David Miranda's detention was an extreme case of a large-scale harassment, especially of Muslims and political activists monitored by MI5. Although rarely held for nine hours, many detainees have been asked questions about their political associations, religious beliefs or mundane details in MI5's files. Tom Watson MP expressed doubt that Miranda is "a terrorist suspect" but the political problem is the opposite: anyone detained under such powers becomes (or already was) a "terror suspect" by definition. Parliament shamefully legislated a broad statutory definition of terrorism and authorised powers well designed for politically motivated harassment. Increasingly, we are all terror suspects. How will we stop this large-scale injustice?
*Les Levidow*
Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (Campacc)
• I was stunned by the harassment of Glenn Greenwald's partner. The UK is not to be outdone by the US authorities, it seems – or is to do their bidding, as if moved by the dictates of a single political brain. This seems as good a time as any to say thank you for the tremendous work, both in breadth and timeliness, done by the Guardian in reporting on the NSA surveillance revelations. Poitras, Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill are an inspiration (as is Snowden, of course), and the paper's support of their work has opened the door for citizens like me to ask pointed and informed questions of their congressional representatives. I hope the entire Guardian staff will remain firm in its purpose to continue reporting on this story. It is one of the reasons I subscribed to your paper.
*Sheila Newbery*
Berkeley, California
• Please publish in full every detail of this episode at Heathrow airport, including as precisely as possible all the questions David Miranda was asked during his detention and how much officers' time and other resources were spent. As a London council-tax-payer I want to know precisely how my Metropolitan police precept is being wasted on irrelevant and possibly unlawful activities.
*Tom Voûte*
London
• Brazilians travelling from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro don't have to come through London. They have a choice of Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris and Madrid. After David Miranda's treatment at Heathrow, more of them may choose one of the alternatives. And they may be "high-value" travellers, carrying sensitive commercial, scientific or artistic information which they see no reason to hand over to the British security services. David Miranda's detention may prove to be an own goal for the UK.
*Francis McDonagh*
London Reported by guardian.co.uk 4 hours ago.
The proposals in the antisocial behaviour, crime and policing bill, to reduce the nine hours to six and allow access to a solicitor only after search and questioning has taken place, fail to address the Big Brother quality of these powers. There also seem to be no safeguards against unreasonable seizure of phones, computers or other property. This outrageous incident underlines the need to amend the bill drastically before it becomes law.
*Anne Gray*
London
• I have attended on several occasions to advise persons detained under schedules 7 and 8 of the Terrorism Act 2000. In my experience schedule 7 interviews are often conducted in a "no man's land" where the airport authority can override police and deny a lawyer access to their client if the lawyer does not happen to be carrying their passport with them (even if the lawyer can satisfy the police as to their identity). The lawyer has to attend in person since it is an imprisonable offence for the lawyer even to generally advise not to answer questions: ie the lawyer has to decide on a question-by-question basis what to advise. Not many experienced lawyers are able to attend at such short notice. Police are not bound to wait for the lawyer and on the outward leg of a journey a person detained is likely to be more anxious about missing their flight than waiting for legal advice or the implications of a carelessly worded reply. The police can and do use these factors to ask irrelevant questions.
*Name and address supplied*
• While the detention of David Miranda is scandalous, it is certainly not the first time this "anti-terrorism" legislation has been used for intimidation and investigation of political dissent. I have been detained twice when re-entering the UK. The first time was in early 2008, when I returned from a holiday in Germany with my then boyfriend. We were detained by the Met's anti-terrorism unit at St Pancras station. They questioned us about military bases, Nato and other related issues, as I was then working at War Resisters' International and involved in the preparation of an anti-Nato action in Brussels (organised publicly, with nonviolence guidelines). The second time was in 2011, on my way back from an anti-Nato meeting in Brussels. I was detained together with a fellow campaigner at Holyhead, this time by Welsh anti-terrorism police. While the detention must have been scary for David Miranda, I hope his case raises awareness about the wide-ranging abuse of anti-terrorism powers by police.
*Andreas Speck*
London
• David Miranda's detention was an extreme case of a large-scale harassment, especially of Muslims and political activists monitored by MI5. Although rarely held for nine hours, many detainees have been asked questions about their political associations, religious beliefs or mundane details in MI5's files. Tom Watson MP expressed doubt that Miranda is "a terrorist suspect" but the political problem is the opposite: anyone detained under such powers becomes (or already was) a "terror suspect" by definition. Parliament shamefully legislated a broad statutory definition of terrorism and authorised powers well designed for politically motivated harassment. Increasingly, we are all terror suspects. How will we stop this large-scale injustice?
*Les Levidow*
Campaign Against Criminalising Communities (Campacc)
• I was stunned by the harassment of Glenn Greenwald's partner. The UK is not to be outdone by the US authorities, it seems – or is to do their bidding, as if moved by the dictates of a single political brain. This seems as good a time as any to say thank you for the tremendous work, both in breadth and timeliness, done by the Guardian in reporting on the NSA surveillance revelations. Poitras, Greenwald and Ewen MacAskill are an inspiration (as is Snowden, of course), and the paper's support of their work has opened the door for citizens like me to ask pointed and informed questions of their congressional representatives. I hope the entire Guardian staff will remain firm in its purpose to continue reporting on this story. It is one of the reasons I subscribed to your paper.
*Sheila Newbery*
Berkeley, California
• Please publish in full every detail of this episode at Heathrow airport, including as precisely as possible all the questions David Miranda was asked during his detention and how much officers' time and other resources were spent. As a London council-tax-payer I want to know precisely how my Metropolitan police precept is being wasted on irrelevant and possibly unlawful activities.
*Tom Voûte*
London
• Brazilians travelling from Berlin to Rio de Janeiro don't have to come through London. They have a choice of Frankfurt, Amsterdam, Paris and Madrid. After David Miranda's treatment at Heathrow, more of them may choose one of the alternatives. And they may be "high-value" travellers, carrying sensitive commercial, scientific or artistic information which they see no reason to hand over to the British security services. David Miranda's detention may prove to be an own goal for the UK.
*Francis McDonagh*
London Reported by guardian.co.uk 4 hours ago.