White House Spokesman Josh Earnest - Q&A on the Detention of David Miranda at Heathrow Airport lyrics

Q: Josh, British authorities detained David Miranda, who, as you know, is the partner of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who wrote about the secrets that Edward Snowden revealed. Human rights groups have called this detention, which was for nine hours, hara**ment. The Brazilian government said there was no justification for it. Was the United States government at all involved in this, and what is the justification for it, if so? MR. EARNEST: Well, Mark, what you're referring to is a law enforcement action that was taken by the British government. The United States was not involved in that decision or in that action. So if you have questions about — if you have questions about that, then I would refer you to the British government. Q: Does the U.S. feel that Miranda could have revealed information that's useful in terms of finding Edward Snowden or pursuing its case against Snowden in any way? MR. EARNEST: Like I said, I'm not aware of any of the conversations that Mr. Miranda may have had with British law enforcement officials while he was detained, but that detention was a decision that was made by the British government and is something that if you have questions about, you should ask them. …. Q: Josh, you talked about the Mubarak detention as being an Egyptian legal matter. You talk about Morsi — politically motivated detention. And then with regard to Mr. Greenwald's partner, you called it a mere law enforcement action. Given that the White House has never been shy about criticizing detention policies overseas, do you have any concerns at all about the U.K.'s law enforcement action in this case? MR. EARNEST: Well, what I can say is I don't have a specific reaction other than to observe to you that this is a decision that was made by the British government and not one that was made at the request or with the involvement of the United States government. Q: So — but you're not going to go as far as to say it's wrong or it's cause for concern? You're just separating yourself entirely from it? MR. EARNEST: Well, I'm separating — what I'm suggesting is that this is a decision that was made by the British government without — you know, not — without the involvement and not at the request of the United States government. I think it's simple as that. Stephen (sp). Q: Just to follow, then, does the U.S. government expect to be briefed on the those — questioning that took place in London or the information that was taken away from Mr. Greenwald's partner? MR. EARNEST: I — to be honest with you, Stephen (sp), I don't have a way to characterize for you any of the conversations between the British government and the U.S. government on this matter, other than to say that this is a decision that they made on their own and not at the request of the United States. But in terms of, you know, the kinds of cla**ified, confidential conversations that are ongoing between the U.S. and our allies in Britain, I'd — I'm not able to characterize that for you. Q: So there are consultations on this matter taking place? MR. EARNEST: I'm telling you I'm not able to provide any insight into those conversations at all. …. Q: Thanks, Josh. Can you state with authority that the U.S. government has not obtained material from the laptop that British authorities confiscated from Glenn Greenwald's partner or from any of his personal devices they also confiscated? MR. EARNEST: I'm just not in a position to talk to you about the conversations between British law enforcement officials and American law enforcement officials. …. Q: You also didn't condemn — the White House didn't condemn the detention. Is the president pleased that he was condemned — or that he was — I'm sorry, is the president pleased that he was detained? MR. EARNEST: Well, again, this is a — this is a law enforcement action that was taken by the British government, and this is something that they did independent of our direction, as you would expect, that the British government's going to make law enforcement decisions that they determine are in the best interests of their country. Q: Was the White House consulted or given a heads up in advance? MR. EARNEST: There was a — there was a — there was a heads up that was provided by the British government. So this — again, this is something that we had an indication was likely to occur, but it's not something that we requested. And it's something that was done specifically by the — by the — by the British law enforcement officials there. Q: Is it at all concerning to the president, the — sort of a nine-hour detention? MR. EARNEST: Well, again, this is a — this is a(n) independent British law enforcement decision that was made. I know the suggestion has been raised by some that this is an effort to intimidate journalists and we've — with all of you, have been undergoing a pretty rigorous debate on a range of issues related to an independent media, an independent journalist covering the application of national security rules, questions about national security leaks and other cla**ified or confidential information and policy. The president, I think, in the course of that debate, has made pretty clear his support for independent journalists, the important role that independent journalists have to play in a vibrant, democratic society like ours. He's also talked about the responsibility of the government to protect the right of independent journalists to do their job. So that's something that the president feels strongly about and has spoken candidly about in the past. But again, if you have specific questions about this law enforcement decision that was made by the British government, you should direct your questions to my friends over there. …. Q: Why was the United States given a heads-up by the British government on this detention? MR. EARNEST: Again, that heads-up was provided by the British government. So you'd direct that question to them. Q: Right, but in — was this heads-up given before he was detained or before it went public that – MR. EARNEST: Probably it wouldn't be a heads-up if they'd have told us about it after they'd detained him. Q: (Laughs.) Q: So it's fair to say they told you they were going to do this when they saw that he was on a manifest? MR. EARNEST: I think that is an accurate interpretation of what a heads-up is. Q: Is this — is this gentleman on some sort of watch list for the United States on TSA? Can you look that up? MR. EARNEST: You'd have to check with the TSA, because they maintain the watch list. And I don't know if they'd tell you or not, but you can ask them. Q: Would — if he's on a watch list for the U.K., would it be safe to a**ume then that he's been put on a watch list for the United States? MR. EARNEST: I'd — the level of coordination between counterterrorism and law enforcement officials in the U.K. and counterterrorism and law enforcement officials in the United States is very good, but in terms of who is on different watch lists and how our actions and their actions are coordinated is not something I'm in a position to talk about from this (stand ?). Q: Did the United States government — when given the heads up, did the United States government express any hesitancy about the U.K. doing this, about the U.K. government doing this? MR. EARNEST: Well, again, this is — this is the — this is the British government making a decision based on British law on British soil about a British law enforcement action. So they gave us the heads up – Q: Did the United — when given the heads up, just said – MR. EARNEST: – they gave us the heads up — they gave us the heads up, and this is something that they did not do at our direction, is not something that we were involved with, this is a decision that they made on their own. Q: Did the United States discourage the action? MR. EARNEST: I'm not going to characterize the conversations, you know, between law enforcement officials in this country and law enforcement officials there, other than to say that those conversations occurred, but — and to point out the fact that this was a decision that they made on their own. Q: But the — is it fair to say that if the United States had discouraged it, you'd tell us? MR. EARNEST: No, because I think it's fair for you to determine that those kinds of law enforcement conversations are not ones that we're going to talk about in public.