Today's Daily Mirror leader page with a trenchant article by Liberty's director

David Miranda's nine-hour detention under anti-terrorism legislation was the subject of leader comment in three national newspapers today.

The Daily Mirror's editorial, "Freedom at stake", called the detention and confiscation of his equipment "unjustifiable" and a "grotesque abuse" of the law. It said:

"If he had been seized by security services in Moscow or Tehran, ministers would be accusing foreign powers of taking liberties. This happened in London, so it is our government with questions to answer. Suspicion is growing that the establishment, including 'securocrats' who want to be free to bug and tap without scrutiny, are intimidating journalists in the hope of evading public accountability."

(Though used regularly by Irish republicans, I cannot recall a mainstream newspaper using the word "securocrats" as a descriptive term before). The Mirror continued:

"It is inconceivable that he [Miranda] poses a terrorist threat… Silencing journalists keeps you, the public, in the dark."

Next to the editorial was a piece by Shami Chakrabarti, director of Liberty, headlined: "It could be you or me.. power of terror act is broad & poisonous".

She argued that schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, "is far too easy to abuse", adding: "It's no good politicians complaining about how a law is used, when the law itself is rotten."

Chakrabarti defended the work of Miranda's partner, Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald, as helping to "keep our democracy healthy" and concluded with a call to arms:

"Arbitrary powers bring huge dangers of injustice. When these things are passed, people think it will never happen to them. Cases like this make us realise anybody could be targeted. This is the wake-up call we need – let's scrap these poisonous powers."

The Financial Times's leader, "Britain's botched use of terror laws", accepted that "at this stage, it is impossible to know why the UK police acted as they did."

But it contended that the legal basis for Miranda's detention "was deeply flawed" and the nine-hour period "constitutes harassment." Like Chakrabarti, the FT believed the detention was "a reminder that UK anti-terror laws are too sweeping."

However, the FT made clear that it believes Edward Snowden, the former NSA computer scientist who leaked secrets about US surveillance to Greenwald, has broken the law and is therefore a legitimate target for American law enforcement agencies, adding:

"However, Britain and the US must act carefully and proportionately in their pursuit of Mr Snowden and his allies, especially journalists. A heavy-handed approach will forfeit public support."

The Times's leader, "Free passage", said that "the balance between liberty and security is never an easy one to strike but a free society must err on the side of protecting freedom." It concluded:

"The legitimacy of legislation used to deter terrorists depends, like all law, on popular consent. There is always a risk that, in defending itself, a free society begins to consume the freedoms it is seeking to defend. It is imperative that the police clarify that this has not been the case here."

The Sun, which has seen 22 of its journalists arrested over allegations of paying police and public officials, said nothing about Miranda's detention.

But The Independent ran a piece by Claire Fox, "Glenn Greenwald and a police force that is high on misusing the law", in which she linked the Miranda incident to The Sun arrests.

"None of these journalists has yet been convicted, many have spent months on police bail, and all have had to endure hours of questioning. Worse, their plight has not been taken up by campaigning journalists of the Greenwald variety because – well – they are the wrong kind of journalists. So while it is terrible if Miranda was an innocent bystander in his partner's investigations, what about the families of those Sun journalists arrested in dawn raids?"

There was no comment in the Daily Telegraph, and none in the Daily Mail either. Both ran page lead news items. The Mail's was a lengthy page 20 lead, "Journalist's partner held for for 9 hours 'had secret files'". And MailOnline ran an update, "Obama given 'heads up before journalist's partner interrogated at Heathrow for nine hours."

The Daily Express also made no comment, although it ran a story headlined "Police defend detaining partner."

There was also an interesting disagreement between blogger Guido Fawkes and his colleague, Harry Cole. After the latter criticised Miranda ("hardly an innocent bystander") and The Guardian, Guido tweeted:

@MrHarryCole You are so on the wrong side of this fight, just because it is the Guardian doesn't mean they are wrong to pursue this story.

And Guido went on to post an item on his blog in which he pointed to today's astonishing article by Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger about the enforced destruction of hard drives. As Guido said, it could be me next time.

Outside Britain, the Miranda detention provoked considerable interest. I'll post on that later.