Guardian’s Story Changes Again: Now They Admit David Miranda Did Have a Lawyer
Remember the Guardian’s first reports about the UK government detaining Glenn Greenwald’s partner David Miranda, and how Greenwald said Miranda had been “denied a lawyer?”
“This is a profound attack on press freedoms and the news gathering process,” Greenwald said. “To detain my partner for a full nine hours while denying him a lawyer, and then seize large amounts of his possessions, 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.
Then, the next day, the Guardian’s story changed. In this article they write that Miranda “refused” a lawyer because he didn’t trust the UK: David Miranda: ‘They Said I Would Be Put in Jail if I Didn’t Co-Operate’.
He was offered a lawyer and a cup of water, but he refused both because he did not trust the authorities.
Well, today the story has changed again. And now the Guardian is acknowledging that Miranda actually did have a lawyer — buried near the very end of this article: David Miranda Wins Partial Court Victory Over Data Seized by Police.
He was compelled to provide passwords for the devices. His lawyers said he only had a lawyer for the last hour of his detention and was not allowed a pen to write down the officers questions or a translator even though English was not his first language.
It’s absolutely unreal how these stories just keep changing, after starting out with the most negative slant possible. The most charitable interpretation is that the reporting has been inexcusably sloppy — but this series of revisions strongly suggests they were deliberately misleading their readers.
Greenwald in particular had to know when he made that first statement that his partner actually did have a lawyer. Why did he lie?