General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: David Miranda was employed as a messenger to carry stolen government documents. [View all]ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...it is something that has always made you stand out here at DU, and my hat is off to you for it. I certainly have not been able to maintain your level of civility.
But you are wrong on this issue, IMNSHO.
(As an aside, the question of whether the phrase "fruit of the poisoned tree" is of Biblical origin is irrelevant; my comment was about its use in legal matters, where there are many sources including the Bible, Shakespeare, and other historical sources -- none of which has any bearing on the usage of the phrase in the law. But back to the issue at hand...)
First of all: You are assuming facts not in evidence, namely, that the journalist in question "has engaged in a conspiracy to acquire such items, with foreknowledge of the theft and communication towards receiving them with the thief". There is zero evidence that is what took place. Now if someone can prove it, that's different; however, in our own system of jurisprudence, we are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions to attempt to prove something we suspect may be the case. Note I am not commenting on whether the UK was within its own laws to detain Miranda or anyone else for any reason at all; apparently their law allows them to do that, but the rest of us can certainly object to what is clearly an over-broad law, and what is clearly an abuse of power, with intent to intimidate.
And WTH do you mean by "as you seem so fond of saying"? I merely noted a FACT, which is that neither you nor I knows what information was in Miranda's possession when he was detained. Why is that considered provocative? It's a simple fact, although it must be inconvenient when one has just asserted that he was in possession of stolen documents, with no evidence to support that assertion.
Also, you say: "What one person can encrypt, another may decode." Maybe. There are actual theoretical limits on decryption, you might want to brush up on that. Poitras is very knowledgeable about what level of encryption is secure, as she has had to deal with it for other stories; also, both she and Greenwald no doubt benefited from Snowden's knowledge in this area as well.
Re: your last sentence: "If anything worth having was on those devices, it was very foolish to put them near the reach of hostile authorities." -- I must ask: what if nothing worth having was on those devices? Was it wrong of the UK to go on this fishing expedition / exercise in intimidation against journalists? Do these things work both ways, or only one way? Because it appears for you, anything Greenwald or Poitras or Miranda does is automatically suspect, while anything the authorities do in this matter is to be cheered.