You have evidence that Mr. Miranda was in "possession of highly classified intelligence that was unlawfully passed on by Snowden" that you are withholding from the UK investigators who detained and questioned him for nine hours and confiscated his equipment missed and failed to arrest him for?
You do realize that withholding evidence of a crime is a crime, of course, and you'll be surrendering yourself and your evidence that they missed to these professional investigators who missed it asap, of course.
You have evidence that Mr. Miranda was in "possession of highly classified intelligence that was unlawfully passed on by Snowden" that you are withholding from the UK investigators who detained and questioned him for nine hours and confiscated his equipment missed and failed to arrest him for?
You do realize that withholding evidence of a crime is a crime, of course, and you'll be surrendering yourself and your evidence that they missed to these professional investigators who missed it asap, of course.
I'm sure it's not the first time you've had trouble understanding simple things and been foolish enough to try to draw ridiculous equivalencies.
I'm also fairly sure it won't be the last time. Your reply to this comment should be even more special.
Detained under terror legislation?
Well, Miranda is the partner of someone who terrifies the terrorists running the UK and US governments.
Ergo he is a terrorist...