That airport arrest troubles me. But the Guardian's in murky waters where those who love their country should not venture

When an apparently blameless Brazilian is taken off a plane at Heathrow and questioned for nine hours by seven spooks, who allegedly intimidated him and confiscated his laptop and mobile phone, the reaction of most people is horror and outrage.

Many will also be appalled by the revelation that some weeks ago the Guardian was ordered by the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Jeremy Heywood, supposedly acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, to destroy some computer hard drives.

These disclosures suggest that, if we do not already live in a police state, we are hurtling fast in that direction. This is the implication of the Guardian’s reporting of these events, which have dominated the airwaves for two days.

David Miranda, right, pictured with his partner, U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald, was taken off a plane at Heathrow and questioned for nine hours by seven spooks

To begin with, that was also my response. David Miranda’s detention and interrogation on Sunday, and reports that the Government smashed up a newspaper’s computers, made my blood boil.



But the truth turns out to be more complex. The Guardian’s version of events has been selective and sometimes open to misinterpretation. In its entirely proper crusade for greater openness, the paper is straying into murky territory.

There’s little doubt the police who detained Mr Miranda mishandled things. They were acting under Schedule 7 of an Act introduced by New Labour in 2000 aimed at Irish republican terrorists.

Since Mr Miranda is obviously not a terrorist, it seems excessive to use Schedule 7, which allows police to detain individuals in an airport and gives no right of silence or automatic access to a solicitor.

Moreover, it is most unusual to subject anyone to as much as nine hours of questioning, the maximum amount allowed under Schedule 7. If Mr Miranda really was threatened with prison, as he alleges, that was unforgivable.

That said, the Guardian now concedes Mr Miranda was offered the services of a lawyer, which he declined on the grounds he wanted to select his own. His chosen solicitor arrived after eight hours.



These facts were not mentioned in the newspaper’s account on Monday.



Miranda was offered the services of a lawyer, which he declined because he wanted to select his own. His chosen solicitor arrived after eight hours. This was not mentioned in the Guardian's account on Monday

Another serious omission was Mr Miranda’s true role. The Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald was quoted as saying Mr Miranda was his partner and that, by detaining the Brazilian, the authorities were trying to intimidate journalists like him.

Mr Greenwald is the Guardian reporter (and American national) who has written most of the paper’s stories about state surveillance based on the leaks from former CIA operative Edward Snowden, who is holed up in Russia.

Now it transpires that, far from being an innocent passenger, Mr Miranda was travelling on Mr Greenwald’s behalf and at the Guardian’s expense. He was very likely carrying top-secret encrypted material passed from Snowden (via a U.S. documentary maker based in Germany), which the British authorities, rightly or wrongly, believed could be useful to terrorists.

In short, the Brazilian was acting as a sort of ‘mule’, though Guardian reports have ignored or under-played this. The Tory MP David Davis, who has bravely campaigned against state surveillance, pointed out yesterday that whatever material was taken from Mr Miranda probably exists elsewhere.



But can you blame the British police for wishing to seize it?

The Guardian says it is only interested in journalism, and that is obviously true. But what happens if its journalism leads it to blunder about in matters that have to do with the security of the state?

By the way, Mr Miranda acted idiotically in coming via London on his way to Rio de Janeiro, as it is the one place in the world other than America where police were likely to take an interest in him.

The Guardian says it is only interested in journalism, and that is obviously true. But what happens if its journalism leads it to blunder about in matters that have to do with the security of the state?

Mr Miranda may have unwittingly been carrying material which, if intercepted by terrorists, could be harmful to British and American interests. Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, concedes he has no idea what Mr Miranda may have had with him.

This is the crux of the issue. For weeks, the Guardian has been publishing leaks from Edward Snowden. Revelations about eavesdropping on ordinary people allegedly carried out by America’s National Security Agency and Britain’s GCHQ are disturbing, and publication has been in the public interest.

But, as I have argued before in this paper, there has also been some material whose publication borders on the treasonable. Snowden released documents to the South China Morning Post revealing that the U.S. had hacked into Chinese computers. This was embarrassing to President Obama, who was castigating the Chinese government for illegally accessing U.S. computers.

Mr Miranda was very likely carrying top-secret encrypted material passed from Edward Snowden (via a U.S. documentary maker based in Germany), which the British authorities believed could be useful to terrorists

The Guardian published allegations from Snowden that the British had spied on several foreign delegations before a G20 summit in 2009. This story was published on the eve of the G8 summit in June held in Northern Ireland, and was intended to damage British interests.

In a BBC radio interview yesterday, Mr Rusbridger claimed his newspaper had ‘held back a great deal’ of information from Snowden that might be harmful to Britain if it ever saw the light of day. Maybe it has, but some stuff has been published that was damaging.

It was because the Government feared the Guardian’s hard drives could contain unused material that might be hacked into by terrorists that it not unreasonably persuaded Mr Rusbridger to destroy them.

Since by its own admission it doesn’t know what Mr Miranda was carrying when he was detained, the Guardian can’t know whether the latest batch of leaks from Snowden may not have been even more incendiary.

Here we come to the darkest part of this story. Mr Greenwald’s reaction to the detention of his partner has been to threaten Britain explicitly. ‘I will be far more aggressive in my reporting from now,’ he said. ‘I have many documents on England’s spy system. I think they will be sorry for what they did.’

Alan Rusbridger, editor of the Guardian, claimed his newspaper had 'held back a great deal' of information from Edward Snowden that might be harmful to Britain if it ever saw the light of day

In other words, Mr Greenwald has information damaging to Britain which, for whatever reason, he has not yet published, but will now do so because of what was done to his partner. I am sickened by this ugly threat and amazed that any journalist could utter it.

If the Guardian is employing at least one reporter driven by revenge to damage this country, hasn’t the time come for the paper to review this connection with Edward Snowden? Hasn’t this whole thing got out of hand?

The police at Heathrow may have acted excessively, but the Guardian appears to have entered very dangerous waters where journalists who care for their country should not venture.

I also can’t help wondering whether the officers didn’t feel emboldened to throw their weight about partly in consequence of the Leveson Report, which has virtually severed relations between journalists and the police.

The Guardian, of course, is almost single-handedly responsible for Leveson because of its — later debunked — allegation that the News of the World deleted the voicemails of the murdered schoolgirl Milly Dowler.

Nor can I help pointing out the newspaper that has shed copious tears for Mr Miranda, held for nine hours, had no such concerns over the interrogation of dozens of red-top journalists. Some were arrested at dawn in front of their families, deprived of their computers for months and released on bail.

Charges won’t be brought against some of them. Others will end up in court. But even the most culpable among them never attempted to damage their country.