[jacquesm]

Mindblowing actually. Lord Falconer is the last person that I would have expected to come out on this side of the debate, I had to re-read the byline to make sure I got it right, that's how unexpected this is. Imagine Eric Holder speaking out on behalf of Snowden or something to that effect. Obviously he's not friend of May's but to pen a column on the issue and declaring this illegal in so many words is a very strong statement.

[nicholassmith]

It's interesting, I'm not actually overly surprised Lord Falconer spoke out over this as whilst he's was repeatedly hammered over the fact that Section 7 was a clear affront to civil liberties he maintained a consistent line that it was for a very specific purpose. I imagine he's enjoying the opportunity to hoist the Conservatives and repeat his line of "we never made it for this".

Alternatively he might be angry that the overly broad legislation that he was involved with has been used an imperfect way and justified the criticism that it received. I lean a bit further toward getting one over on the Tories though.

[coopdog]

If he was a part of 'overly broad legislation' that 'could be used inappropriately but shouldn't be', then he's an idiot, or naive.

Put specific cases in which the law is applicable into the law itself, and specifically exclude as many applications as you can see that it shouldn't be applied for.

Giving broad powers to police and trusting them, just like trusting any human with broad powers, is a recipe for disaster. But then again we all knew this, I'm glad it's been an eye opener for him.

[jacquesm]

I remember the way he spoke during the Kelly affair and that stands out more than anything for me. Contrasted with that to speak out like this in the Guardian no less is completely out of character. He's as much a chip of the old block as there ever was and even though he no doubt doesn't mind grilling the Tories he is going far further than would be required for that.

[repsilat]

I'm not so surprised. If this were a proper use of the law it would be a much stronger case for the Greenwald/Snowden side -- in that case it would be clear that the law should be changed.

If this was a misapplication of the law then all that's called for is a slap on the wrist for the people who detained Miranda and an official apology. They might get some extra oversight out of it, but that's a stretch. Probably just a few internal memos so future actions don't raise such a stink.

[gadders]

Not really. Eric Holder is still in power. A better analogy would be if George Bush's Attorney General spoke for Snowden.

[jacquesm]

You're right, that would be a better choice. Thanks!

[easytiger]

isn't this all irrelevant and too late?

The government doesn't comment on security matters. There is no recourse. End of discussion.