On June 14, US federal prosecutors charged Snowden with espionage and theft of government property. Snowden has been granted a 12-month period of asylum by Russian President Vladimir Putin, on the condition that the disclosures cease. Which leaves Greenwald as the number one thorn in the US government's side. It has been reported that Snowden passed Greenwald 15,000 to 20,000 documents with details of NSA surveillance operations.
After Miranda's release, Greenwald told the Guardian: This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news-gathering process [which] 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.
The editor of the Guardian, Alan Rusbridger, in a column devoted to the threat faced by journalism in the digital age, wrote of the "international dismay" that the arrest had caused. He argued that the state was building a surveillance system where before too long it would be impossible for journalists to maintain the confidentiality of sources and that governments, while paying lip service to the need for public debate, are making a concerted effort to silence whistleblowers.
This was where the Guardian became the story as it emerged that Miranda was more than just a partner returning from abroad. He was in Berlin for a week visiting Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker, who had worked with Greenwald on the NSA revelations. The New York Times revealed that that the Guardian had paid for the flights.
To be fair to the Guardian, though, both Greenwald and his editor Rusbridger were up front about the importance of Miranda as an "intermediary" to the journalistic process. Rusbridger has since confirmed that the Guardian will be "supporting" Miranda in his legal action against the British government. But none of this detracts from what has, rightly in my view been called a "gross misuse"of terror laws. Under what basis could Miranda have constituted a terrorist threat?
For Nick Cohen in the Spectator, basic freedoms have been violated by the state and the events were another indicator of how Britain had changed for the worse: detaining Miranda at the request of the US in order to find out what Greenwald was going to do next. But some commentators have backed the police's action. Writing in the Daily Telegraph, Tim Stanley argued that "the actions of the British authorities make perfect sense. It knows that Greenwald is linked to Snowden and it knows that Snowden has access to stolen information related to UK security. So why wouldn't it take the opportunity of Miranda stepping on to British soil to interrogate him? They're really only fulfilling their job description."
Former Tory MP Louise Mensch told the BBC that Greenwald had admitted that Miranda was carrying "classified, stolen intelligence data encrypted on hard-drives. He wasn't stopped because he was somebody's husband and he wasn't stopped because he was a journalist."
Perhaps the most sensible commentary is from Richard Sambrook, a former director of Global News at the BBC. He highlighted various undeniable truths presented without the myriad differing agendas which often cloud debates on national security and journalism.
To paraphrase a few points: those involved in revealing secrets of national importance should not be surprised if the security services take an interest in their activities. But this doesn't mean that those issues of national importance should not be reported. Importantly, governments, police and the intelligence services should recognise that journalism is not terrorism and terrorism laws should not be used to intimidate journalists.
We seem to be careering away from some basic principles of a functioning democracy. One of the most alarming episodes recounted by Rusbridger in his column on Miranda's arrest, concerns a visit to the Guardian's offices by two GCHQ experts who stood and watched while two of the newspaper's hard drives were destroyed. Leaving aside the barely credible scene of a Government in 2013 forcing the destruction of press property, do we really accept that these two experts believed that, in the digital age, the information was only on those machines?
Not at all. Rusbridger's account points to a clear act of intimidation. Bully boy tactics of little finesse and sinister purpose. Rusbridger was left in no doubt that the government would seek to close down the paper's reporting through legal means - and if it could not, force them to hand over, or destroy, material on which they were working.
Would it be a massive shock then - given the way Rusbridger has extolled the liberties enshrined in the US First Amendment - if the Guardian were found to be considering moving its reporting base from London? Where at least it would be free, in theory at least, from the physical attention of Government and GCHQ?
Miranda's arrest and Rusbridger's revelations should alarm those who still believe the British Government acts in the best interests of democracy and freedom. In the words of Kirsty Hughes of Index on Censorship, "it seems that the UK government is using, and quite likely misusing, laws to intimidate journalists and silence its critics".
John Jewell is director of Undergraduate Studies, School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies at Cardiff University.
Dialogue: Contributions are welcome and should be 600-800 words. Send your submission to dialogue@nzherald.co.nz. Text may be edited and used in digital formats as well as on paper.
theconversation.edu.au
