So what Bill is left unable to explain is why, if Miranda was indeed in possession of illegally obtained materials, the UK did not charge him with such -- or offer him up for extra[ordinary ren]dition to the USA where such charges could be prosecuted. Was the UK then derelict in not charging him and in allowing him to depart? It is incumbent upon you to explain all of this stasifactorily if you want to legitmize the UK's piracy of Miranda's property. BTW, data of any sort is an abstraction and not in itself anything 'physical'; hence, it cannot in any real (non-figurative) sense be "stolen" as nobody actually OWNS it. Yes, secrets exist and can be broken and leaked, but it is only power or consensual agreements which engender and enforce their existence in the first place. Who/Whom. Here, the secrets are those of the WHO, the leaks are those of the WHOM.
If, indeed, Miranda was carrying "stolen" documents, then it was the UK's responsibility to arrest him, charge him, and detain him for trial -- or for extradition to the victim nation. The mere fact that UK did not so proceed is enough to explode your point, or at least to beg considerable wonderment. In awarding Miranda his liberty after nine hours, the UK had no right to confiscate any of his possessions -- either that, or they let free a potential terrorist despite probable cause. A suitably tutored inference would be that, in detaining Miranda as long as they did but then confiscating his electronic stuff, the UK was obliging the USA with a quiet favour despite misgivings that what is was doing risked being unlawful under Schedule 7.
I think you overlooked something a bit more basic -- viz., pass a USA PATRIOT Act, preaching and praising patridiotism. Moreover, in referring to 312 million innocent citizens, you would seem to have forgotten all the rest of the world, which of course consists of lesser (non-US) beings (like me). Still, your recipe strikes me as most stasifactory.
So what Bill is left unable to explain is why, if Miranda was indeed in possession of illegally obtained materials, the UK did not charge him with such -- or offer him up for extra[ordinary ren]dition to the USA where such charges could be prosecuted. Was the UK then derelict in not charging him and in allowing him to depart? It is incumbent upon you to explain all of this stasifactorily if you want to legitmize the UK's piracy of Miranda's property. BTW, data of any sort is an abstraction and not in itself anything 'physical'; hence, it cannot in any real (non-figurative) sense be "stolen" as nobody actually OWNS it. Yes, secrets exist and can be broken and leaked, but it is only power or consensual agreements which engender and enforce their existence in the first place. Who/Whom. Here, the secrets are those of the WHO, the leaks are those of the WHOM.
If, indeed, Miranda was carrying "stolen" documents, then it was the UK's responsibility to arrest him, charge him, and detain him for trial -- or for extradition to the victim nation. The mere fact that UK did not so proceed is enough to explode your point, or at least to beg considerable wonderment. In awarding Miranda his liberty after nine hours, the UK had no right to confiscate any of his possessions -- either that, or they let free a potential terrorist despite probable cause. A suitably tutored inference would be that, in detaining Miranda as long as they did but then confiscating his electronic stuff, the UK was obliging the USA with a quiet favour despite misgivings that what is was doing risked being unlawful under Schedule 7.
I think you overlooked something a bit more basic -- viz., pass a USA PATRIOT Act, preaching and praising patridiotism. Moreover, in referring to 312 million innocent citizens, you would seem to have forgotten all the rest of the world, which of course consists of lesser (non-US) beings (like me). Still, your recipe strikes me as most stasifactory.