General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsGlenn Greenwald: "Detaining My Partner: A Failed Attempt at Intimidation"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/18/david-miranda-detained-uk-nsaSunday 18 August 2013 14.44 EDT
Detaining my partner: a failed attempt at intimidation
The detention of my partner, David Miranda, by UK authorities will have the opposite effect of the one intended
Glenn Greenwald
At 6:30 am this morning my time - 5:30 am on the East Coast of the US - I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as a "security official at Heathrow airport." He told me that my partner, David Miranda, had been "detained" at the London airport "under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act of 2000."
- snip -
I immediately contacted the Guardian, which sent lawyers to the airport, as well various Brazilian officials I know. Within the hour, several senior Brazilian officials were engaged and expressing indignation over what was being done. The Guardian has the full story here.
Despite all that, five more hours went by and neither the Guardian's lawyers nor Brazilian officials, including the Ambassador to the UK in London, were able to obtain any information about David. We spent most of that time contemplating the charges he would likely face once the 9-hour period elapsed.
- snip -
The stated purpose of this law, as the name suggests, is to question people about terrorism. The detention power, claims the UK government, is used "to determine whether that person is or has been involved in the commission, preparation or instigation of acts of terrorism."
- snip -
Worse, they kept David detained right up until the last minute: for the full 9 hours, something they very rarely do. Only at the last minute did they finally release him. We spent all day - as every hour passed - worried that he would be arrested and charged under a terrorism statute. This was obviously designed to send a message of intimidation to those of us working journalistically on reporting on the NSA and its British counterpart, the GCHQ.
Before letting him go, they seized numerous possessions of his, including his laptop, his cellphone, various video game consuls, DVDs, USB sticks, and other materials. They did not say when they would return any of it, or if they would.
This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism. It's bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It's worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they feel threatened by. But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.
If the UK and US governments believe that tactics like this are going to deter or intimidate us in any way from continuing to report aggressively on what these documents reveal, they are beyond deluded. If anything, it will have only the opposite effect: to embolden us even further. Beyond that, every time the US and UK governments show their true character to the world - when they prevent the Bolivian President's plane from flying safely home, when they threaten journalists with prosecution, when they engage in behavior like what they did today - all they do is helpfully underscore why it's so dangerous to allow them to exercise vast, unchecked spying power in the dark.
MORE[p]
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Autumn
(45,066 posts)Recommended.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)
chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)They cannot stop the truth.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)
fujiyama
(15,185 posts)Time Magazine was being a little too transparent about the goals of the establishment last night when Grunwald said he can't wait to see Assange dead.
He deleted the tweet, but he was just voicing his and the ruling class' majority's voice on this.
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And they might be about ready to do it.
silvershadow
(10,336 posts)Greenwald is gay, nor do I give a rats behind, but some do. Same old tricks, it seems. And again, I have no idea if he was out or not, still, I'm just sayin'. 
Autumn
(45,066 posts)detain Mr. Miranda for questioning would be smart enough to know what is pretty common knowledge. I think "outing" never entered into it. This was to send a message or see if he had what they wanted.
MotherPetrie
(3,145 posts)
RKP5637
(67,107 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I'll wait a couple days for more info on this story - I won't be taking GGs or the Guardian's word on anything on this subject.
For all we know David could have deliberately made himself a target so Glennie could use this story. Maybe he squawked like a chicken pucking out bomb bomb bomb for all we know.
No Sale!
GeorgeGist
(25,320 posts)DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Hint: it has something to do with posts like this.
randome
(34,845 posts)As evidenced by the thread about the black woman who claimed the KKK attacked her. As evidenced by the thread promoting the idea that Kerry threatened Venezuela.
Wait and see before jumping in with both feet. It's always good advice but especially so when something seems to conveniently fit a preconceived narrative.
That's when you should especially be cautious. My tagline below is intended to convey that very message.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and the story is published in the Guardian. I'm pretty sure they are being extra careful with stories related to the NSA disclosures, given how important this story is for them. I think I'll go with Glenn on this one, TYVM.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I don't recall the exact details but they changed their wording in the story after some time passed (which contradicted their orignal, I believe) and did not make a 'correction' notice.
They were not extra careful then, so why would anyone think they would be now?
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...your own vague recollection?
Come back when you know the answer to your own question, then we'll talk.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...for which you have zero evidence, in the form of a question to me. A lot like, "Hey, remember when some people said X? I think I remember that. But it refutes your point, eh?". And you expected me to do what? Agree?
Weak.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)Your post is hilarious.
Response to randome (Reply #11)
Name removed Message auto-removed
randome
(34,845 posts)I have no problem being wrong about something because I don't care about being right.
So far, we have a reported U.K. incident. In itself, that indicates little to me.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
Response to randome (Reply #70)
Name removed Message auto-removed
randome
(34,845 posts)Are you referring to the couple of thousand erroneous computer-generated queries out of millions?
Sorry, it takes more than that to convince me of intent. This is the Information Age. It's very easy to cause cascading events because of a keying error.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]
Response to randome (Reply #100)
Name removed Message auto-removed
MyNameGoesHere
(7,638 posts)Yes like the one that might send a hellfire missile up the wrong persons ass. But that is just the price we pay for "freedom" right?
When your employer makes a "keying" mistake on your check I am sure you are just all a twitter and peachy.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)We are now to be criticized/castigated for advising that folks wait for confirmation before buying the first story out?
What are we coming to and where are we headed?
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That post was disingenuous at best. Its whole purpose was to dismiss the OP in a thinly veiled manner.
Or are you saying that the Guardian is full of it?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)given the inaccuracies and shark jumping and thin sourcing and light digging of the press ... including the Guardian, it is wise to wait.
But that seems so 4 1/2 years ago.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)Thought so.
Show me how this was different when BushCo was POTUS.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Never mind ... For you to pull that out your ass (that my comment had anything to do with President Obama) means you are too ffar gone for me to continue with you.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)That amount of time coupled with what I know about your stances based on posts led me to believe that's what you meant.
If you didn't mean that, then please, explain.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)take one piece of information ... make an assumption about what the writer meant, based on an one's opinion of the writer ... and Presto, Bingo ... assumption becomes fact, becomes tool to advance a previously held opinion that became fact through a similiar process, becomes accusation ... Then when called on that B.S., a B.S. request for an explanation.
I certainly hope you don't run you IRL like this.
I thought liberals lived in a fact-based world, where fact informs opinion; not a world where opinion creates fact. But like I said ... that is so 4 1/2 years ago; back when Democrats didn't make sport of attacking Democrats on a democratic supporting message board.
cui bono
(19,926 posts)You don't explain what you mean by that and I know your position of always defending Obama, who coincidentally took office, wait for it... right about 4 1/2 years ago. It doesn't take much to connect the dots. You got closer to saying it yourself just now... "that is so 4 1/2 years ago; back when Democrats didn't make sport of attacking Democrats on a democratic supporting message board".
So... what happened that 4 1/2 years ago other than that that you are referring to?
Why don't you just spit out what you're trying to say instead of making childish comments about how I might be IRL?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)That is pretty clear ... isn't it?
Childish comments? Okay ...
cui bono
(19,926 posts)And why did that start happening 4 1/2 years ago?
I honestly think you're trying not to be specific because it is what I thought it was to begin with, but you know what? It really doesn't matter any more.
I can tell you why I think Dems are attacking Dems so much though. People who cannot stand criticism of PBO think that any criticism is an attack and then they attack those who criticize.
Why do you think Dems are attacking Dems?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)credible sources. I'm sure you've seen by now. There is NO DOUBT, not there ever was to people who were not trying to avoid what is certainly one of the most outrageous assaults on a Journalist, using his family member to try to 'get to him', so far.
Not to mention the law they detained him under, is already an extremely Controversial law and I hope this seals its fate once and for all.
This incident aside from the sheer criminality of it in any country calling itself a Democracy, was one of the stupidest things they could have done.
It has ensured that Greenwald will now be a worldwide here, which is already happening. Even Andrew Sullivan has finally seen the light on this issue, thanks to what happened to David, Greenwald's partner.
I don't know who makes these decisions, but stupid is too good a word for them. I however, am very grateful they do not hire smart people.
So now that there is no question about it, what do you think of what happened?
U4ikLefty
(4,012 posts)cui bono
(19,926 posts)Which negates this post.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)That much is true.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Private Security Corporations who have been hired to smear Journalists like Glenn Greenwald. It's all overyone's imagination!
Oh, maybe you are still waiting to verify that HB Gary WAS bidding on a contract to Smear Glenn Greenwald for writing about the corruption of Wall St??
Did you 'question' that also? Do you APPROVE of our tax dollars going to Multi Billion Dollar Private Seecurity Corps to help the SMEAR JOURNALISTS??
How scary to live in a country where a blogger writes about politics, banks, Wall St and has a relatively small following, but Government Funded Corporations pay to smear them in an attempt to silence them.
Thanks to HB Gary Greenwald became an International Journalist rather than a small blogger here in the US. So I guess it back-fired. But the Creep Factor is growing, and more and more people are becoming more and more angry about it.
The more screw ups like this they engage in, the more positive they can be that Journalists like Greenwald will become more and more popular.
cali
(114,904 posts)From the NYT:
<snip>
London’s Metropolitan Police Service, which had jurisdiction over the case, said in a statement that Mr. Miranda had been lawfully detained under the Terrorism Act and later released, without going into detail.
<snip>
A spokesman for the British Foreign Ministry said the episode was a “police matter” and would provide no further comment.
<snip>
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)There can be room for speculation about why Mr. Miranda was detained, but not that he was.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I know how this works, I've seen it countless times here. I'm surprised you haven't picked it up yet.
I can almost guarantee you that Greenwalds' story is either adding a whole lot to something, or avoiding a lot of something.
Unfortunately, most will just hear want they want to hear - the story in this OP and stick to that no matter what else comes out about it.
tic toc, time will tell.
In the meantime I will sit in my lounger with a beer and watch all you serious people fall all over him.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)he almost never gets the story complete the first time through.
Sid
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and the reason he doesn't have complete stories is that he puts his finger up in the air, sees which way the wind is blowing, then does his follow ups according to that.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)because of "suspicion" I hope to God you wouldn't be blase about it. Seeing as you are straight up loyal to the Canadian government and love the US government and both of their founding documents.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and might have put his loved ones in.
--
sorry, Aerows....
Aerows
(39,961 posts)but I'm pointing out that both of these men are somebody's children. It's like they are nefarious entities that don't have motivations beyond "ruling the world" and "1 million dollars". And that's a pretty screwed up perspective.
This was a person. A person who is the spouse of another person who is a journalist. To detain him, and "make him pay" in as many petty ways as possible because he happens to love someone that isn't popular with the government is screwed up, too. Think about it.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)But dont let that stop you.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)a conversation with your imaginary friend.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)Snowden said he had documents that could be very harmful to the U.S. He said he had agent's names and other things that could bring America down to it's knees (or was this GG saying that, they are kind of interchangeable how they speak their nonsense). Those documents could very well have such information on other countries as well.
Those are threatening words. Very serious stuff. If you can't accept that factoid then there is no point in reading further.
So David has a visit with Poitras (the filmaker that also just coincidentally happens to have Libertarian leanings and has partnered with snowden and greenwald) and has some devices on him that could store copies of these documents that Snowden thieved off with.
Britain and the U.S. and most countries, whether you appreciate it or not, do share information on possible threats. David could have very easily looked like a possible threat with all that stuff he was carrying. He is not a journalist, so I would think that if he had those docs on his person, he could be implicated in the theft - I don't know.
Why he was held so long, that we also don't know. But even just going on a simple trip, sometimes airport waits are unbearable.
Where they checking his laptop and stuff while he was waiting? dunno
Was he 'abducted' like Greenwald said? Very highly unlikely - just his use of incendiary words to ramp up the donor meter.
But we will see.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)...
I was giving my guesses at to what may have gone down. Is that not allowed, now we have to Fact Check that?
omg
and what's that link got to do with anything?
here, here's one for you:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/11594023
did you Fact Check that one?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Quit playing stupid games.
The OP was mostly false.
You jumped on it like it was true to trash Greenwald.
I showed how it was false.
You said it wasn't.
I asked you questions multiple times to show me how it was false and you did not answer.
You didn't care about not jumping to conclusions.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Do you have a dossier on me of what I say where and when? What is my fail grade?
Can anyone, in your opinion, be wrong, or just certain people? Not admitting anything about that thread, as I haven't reread it and mostly don't remember it.
Should I flagellate myself in front of you and Glenn?
many serious questions!
Civilization2
(649 posts)you are merely attempting, lamely,. to provide a reasonable doubt to anyone looking for one,. those who just "want to believe",. you have done it before as documented above and it stinks of fakery and weak character.
Sorry, but most folks see cause and effect,. and see the corporate-military playing dangerous games with peoples lives and human rights. It is unacceptable, and the people will not let it go.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)You gonna tell me that I have no business talking about 'American' Stuff? I've had a few people say that already, the Freedom Fry Democrats I guess I can call them?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)I hold dual Canadian-U.S. citizenship. But I have never visited a Canadian message board and know nearly nothing about your politics, aside from the fact that Harper is Bush2.
What's the fascination?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)What's the fascination about me?
Haven't you noticed other 'furiners' here before?
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)in which they invest a lot of their time. And I find it very interesting that there are some people on this board who aren't Americans, but post in support of policies/laws/rules that undermine our Democratic ideals and Constitutional amendments.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I support the President, so if you think that is undermining your democratic ideals and constitution maybe it is you who should be questioned about who you really are and what stakes you have here.
This 'you don't belong here' shit is pathetic and juvenile. but I know the algorhymns of it from experience - I must be hitting some nerves that you can't respond to in a normal way so you bring out this questioning, STASI shit about who I am and my motives.
Nice Try!
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)nor did I say "you don't belong here". Talk about hitting a nerve.
Support of the current president is NOT the same as supporting America's Democratic ideals and Constitution. In fact, supporting those ideals, no matter what the current president's policies are, is precisely what makes someone a genuine supporter of American Democracy.
I've noticed that you, on the other hand, support the president no matter what, and my curiosity as to why a non-citizen would invest so much time doing so is very normal.
If you don't want to answer, though, just say so, and lose the STASI crap.
Puglover
(16,380 posts)And screw anyone who says otherwise. And it's great that you are so interested in American politics.
But what you don't have a right to do (as a Canadian citizen) is to tell an American citizen how to feel about OUR elected officials. That is none of your business.
I live in Ecuador. I would never EVER presume to tell any of my Ecuadorian friends how to feel about President Correa or what is wrong with how they feel about him. That is none of my business as I am not an Ecuadorian citizen.
Frankly it astounds me that you and Dithers think this is just a swell thing to do.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Peregrine Took
(7,413 posts)LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)I am British (with some American connections); in this particular case my country is very directly involved; but I think that America is so influential on both foreign and economic policies that affect the whole world, that we have a right to comment on the policies and candidates.
In this case, my views are diametrically opposite from those of Whisp - and I don't think this is a British-versus-Canadian thing - but I don't think that there is anything suspect in our commenting. The admins of DU would have a right to ban non-Americans from posting; but since they have not done so, and indeed welcome all comers, I think we do have the right!
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)I think Canadian politics, except perhaps for the English/French tensions, tends to be less dramatic than those of some other countries! And to have less influence on the world. Also, I get the impression that a lot of the decisions are made by the provinces rather than the national government.
I am probably more aware of the politics of Australia - with which I have no connection, and have never even been there - than of Canada.
This may say something about Canadian politics, or perhaps about the extent to which the media reports it.
Cha
(297,191 posts)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)damn furiners!
Hey aren't you one of them too, Cha?
We should zip our lips and let the men and women from the centre of the universe speak.
Notice how I spelled 'centre' correctly?
Cha
(297,191 posts)was born in Hawai'i. 
They don't mind others who are outside of the USA who toe their Poor Greenwald, Poor Assange, and Poor Snowden speak. Just those who don't think like they do.
Glad you're here, Whisp!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)And I love the fishing in Southern Ontario. Very nice people in Canada.
treestar
(82,383 posts)I'd at least assume it was about something they did.
Greenwald not so much. It must be about him. Of course it is.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)Instead, you CLAIMED that you were going to wait for the facts to come in, and then immediately gave lie to that claim by floating a conspiracy theory that you made up as you were going along.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I was just using my imagination on how GG can use his partner (who was visiting Poitras) as a tool of some sort for his stories and his readership and his donations. Maybe things were getting a little too quiet for him ad people were starting to ask uncomfortable questions of him or worse yet, starting to ignore his lying ass -- and he wasn't getting the attention he so desperately desires and made some attention up. That's not a new tactic.
I don't trust him, I think he is a scammer and liar - so of course this scenario isn't too far off the mark in my eyes.
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)What you can't do is simultaneously claim that you're waiting for the facts to come in, when you're doing no such thing.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)because he has not been very truthful in the past.
When more facts come in (and I doubt they will be carried in by Mr. Green) I may change my opinion, or not.
Till then I am enjoying laughing at the scammer. He begs for it.
pucka pucka pucka
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)I've been reading Greenwald for years and years on Salon and now The Guardian.
I follow him on Twitter and he has even retweeted me a couple of times.
I don't recall him EVER asking for money.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)I suppose just after he became associated with them. I don't have the link any more.
But yeh, apparently that's the way journo/bloggers or whatever they call themselves, get their paychecks. I don't think the Guardian pays him anything - he just uses their Name as employer?
He doesn't sign off with a 'gimme money' thing on all his pieces, that would be a bit embarassing or something, even for him .
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)I doubt very much that his donations have any transparency requirements, but it sure would be interesting to see who gives him money and in what amounts and whether that decides what stories he focuses on. I can see a fair bit of small donations, for example, from people from libertarian forums and such but I can also see someone like a stinkin' Koch feeding him money too. The Kochs of the world are enjoying all this immensely and will pay high price, I am sure, to anyone who will carry the story for them in the way they have paid for it to be carried. Tear down the government and it's silly regulations and bring Obama down with it.
But that has always been a bit of a problem with journalists and how they get paid. Say for example, Chris Matthews - he gets his paycheque from NBC, who owns (or vice versa) GE who makes lots of juicy expensive war toys. Now would Chris Mathews bite the hand that feeds him when the ramp up to the Iraq war happened? No, Chris went along with all the other liars or ignoramuses and nodded his dumb fucking head to that invasion like most every other pay chequer. But at the very least we absolutely know that.
We don't know who is paying Greenwald.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)because two of the richest men in America are paying him.
Right.
Just keep making up faceless stuff while demanding everyone wait for more facts.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)This would be great opportunity for both GG and people who side with the Tear the Government Down faction.
It would be a nice arrangement, wouldn't it? What's whacky about that?
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Your posts in this thread are a joke. Is there more than one person typing, who doesn't get to see what the other said earlier?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)why are so many of you on my ass today?
that is very unusual.
It must have been that story I posted about Greenwald talking about snoopery while the Guardian was snooping the audience.
That must of stung, eh?
Anyway, I'm off for the night. Have to save some fun for tomorrow.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)No, I haven't read your 'snoopery' posts. I saw there was a thread with something like that in the title, and I thought "that's a waste of time" and moved on. Your thread means less to me than you typing "must of" instead of "must have". It saddens me to see ignorance of English (or are you French Canadian? That would give you half an excuse).
Aerows
(39,961 posts)That there is no evidence whatsoever that this happened? Yes, or no. Feel free to add nuanced commentary after the fact, but did it happen, yes or no.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)without some other supporting info.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)What evidence would be enough?
The smell of burning bodies in a detainment camp?
Being stopped on a country road by a police officer with a machine gun for no reason at all?
When will Americans wake up to what is happening to our country and our world?
It baffles me that the same people who deride Snowden for having accepted (and reluctantly) refuge in Russia because the Russians are even less free than those of us in traditionally democratic countries, can't see the abuse of state force when it is being used.
I appreciate your skepticism. It is always wise to ask for evidence. What kinds of evidence will you believe? When will you decide that the water you are sitting in is starting to boil?
Could you describe some possible scenarios or events or changes that would make you wary?
Whisp
(24,096 posts)you should be ashamed of yourself comparing The Greenwald Follies to that.
I have no idea what more info will be coming out because my crystal ball is in the shop, but I do know some more will and if past performance has anything to it, Greenwald will have either embellished or made up bits and when confronted will have a hissy fit and call names.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)signs of serious problems before a lot of other people.
Please don't be so personal in your criticisms. You have no idea who I am or what I have seen and lived through. Don't assume you are right.
The surveillance programs now in place are extremely intrusive.
Our telephones don't just communicate when we use them to talk. They also communicate most of the time -- where we are, for example.
I pay the telephone company to provide me a service and to sell me a telephone. I do not pay the telephone company to keep my phone records. The records are mine. I pay for the entire package. My telephone, my share of the telephone companies costs and the cost of my phone bill. The government does not pay my phone company to provide my service and therefore has no right to my phone bills. They are strictly a matter of a contract between me and my phone company.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)ocpagu
(1,954 posts)... with absolutely no legal basis to do so... but Greenwald is the one seeking attention? Really?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)The lack of self-awareness in some people is astounding.
quakerboy
(13,920 posts)Event happens
Event is publicized, inevitably with some details correct and others incorrect.
Spin machines go into hyperdrive.
Everyone declares moral victory
I dont know Greenwald. I suspect there is an element of publicity seeking/hyperbole to this story.
I guarantee that the spun up counter stories that are doubtless about to spew forth will have a huge amount of flaws.
I personally, tend to believe that it will be more true than not. I rather expect that when the "full story" comes out, I will find myself confirmed in my belief. And you believe that the story is completely misleading. I will physically eat my hat and donate my lunch money for the next week to the charity or political campaign of your choice if your interpretation of the "full story" to come later is anything other than confirmation of your current belief.
In the end, most people, you and the op, and even myself, will almost certainly believe what they want to believe, which will happen to be the same exact thing you believed before the story ever saw the light of day. Facts dont matter for anything anymore. Each side just makes their own now.
Swagman
(1,934 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)Amazing people do not take him with a grain of salt at this point.
tazkcmo
(7,300 posts)Especially as it begins with "almost". Our government has a very long history of doing stuff We the People find disgusting. It's an established pattern. From the Tuskegee Airmen to nuke testing on soldiers to Watergate to this. I WILL guarantee (no almost) that our government is hiding much more information from us and it will be worse than what we've learned so far. How can I guarantee this? Because our government has an established, verifiable history of doing nefarious things. So you sit and drink your beer and enjoy your little bubble.
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)whistler162
(11,155 posts)into diatribes!
Aerows
(39,961 posts)I've missed you.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)get in touch with him and have a talkie.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...but still, wow: openly supporting intimidation tactics by the security state, right here on DU.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)They don't like that.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"Wait for the facts everyone! In the meantime, here's some stuff from nowhere I just made up that just happens to also work as smear propaganda..."
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and not I?
My making shit up doesn't do squat harm to anyone except maybe a few people here that see the sun rise and fall on his lying ass. His making up shit is a tad more serious that affects a lot of peeps.
Nice try tho!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Now you admit you are making shit up?
So it's ok for you because fewer people read it? Nice.
Whisp
(24,096 posts) Hissyspit
(45,788 posts) Whisp
(24,096 posts)just like that sweet word Globalisation! Can only mean something good, right?
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Newspaper does not equal government.
Cookies at a website does not equal NSA surveillance.
I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions in this thread, you know, the one where you took facts at face value without waiting for more to come out (and you could have gone and got the facts yourself):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3094672
Post #128.
Response to Hissyspit (Reply #48)
Name removed Message auto-removed
cali
(114,904 posts)You slam him for purportedly making stuff up but pull, uh, material from certain places with alacrity.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)okay.
Yeh, I can see you believing that.
pucka pucka pucka
fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)Fuddnik
(8,846 posts)cali
(114,904 posts)your scenario defies all logic.
The most sensationalist stuff pops up here in a flash...then the debunking begins.
plug3
(3 posts)a little courage and commitment to civil rights (outside of pet issues).
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
Whisp
(24,096 posts)and why did his lover and friends just let him do it?
you don't find this just a tad strange?
I wonder too if he had that junk on him on the trip to Poitras. Or if he picked them up from her...
O yes, I know. Silly questions. We must not question The Grate GG.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)in a White House! Or something like it.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Designed to make the NSA look BAD!!! Fiendish!!
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)IMO the reason that some are so obsessed with "killing the messenger", is that they refuse to believe that their authoritarian leaders would do them wrong. Therefore, anyone that dares pull the curtain back must be made an example.
People in power will lie and deceive. It's absolutely necessary, in a Democracy, to be skeptical and maintain an active oversight of your leaders. Blind faith in leaders is neither Democratic nor democratic.
dickthegrouch
(3,173 posts)Who pays the bill if the phone is used to make phone calls?
Where does one go to retrieve the confiscated equipment *if* they give it back (Does one have to make another trip to London to recover it)?
Does one receive a receipt for each of the items confiscated?
Who has custody of any of the items?
I would take the name of the officer confiscating and charge him personally with theft if it was not returned in 24 hours, or by the time I was allowed to continue on my business whichever occurs earlier.
I'd also sue the detaining officer for any fees the airline charged me to rebook me after missing my originally intended flight.
There's also the possibility that my bags go permanently missing as a result of not making the original flight so they can expect to be charged with the theft of the contents of those bags too.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)personal property and hold it up to 7 days.
TheBlackAdder
(28,189 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)for the target (whose supposed to be a suspected terrorist) to know what spyware the govt thinks is a good install. Just knowing what the installs are could prove very useful to a target. And Greenwald, being a journalist, could put that info out in the media.
Would the govt chance that or the likelihood that the target would hack it to find it's vulnerabilities?
NOVA_Dem
(620 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)a few pictures of children, ya know? Boom! Greenwald's partner gone for decades.
OnyxCollie
(9,958 posts)It's not just for drug dealers.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)very disheartening
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)...this does seem like some attempt at intimidation / retaliation for his and Snowden's bringing to light the extent of NSA spying, based on what we know so far.
octoberlib
(14,971 posts)Glenn Greenwald Responds to Widespread Lies About Him (on Cato, Iraq War, and more)
Back then - when I was writing every day to criticize the Bush administration - Bush followers tried to apply the label "far leftist" to me. Now that I spend most of my energy writing critically about the Obama administration, Obama followers try to claim I'm a "right-wing libertarian".
These labels are hard to refute primarily because they've become impoverished of any meaning. They're just mindless slurs used to try to discredit one's political adversaries. Most of the people who hurl the "libertarian" label at me have no idea what the term even means. Ask anyone who makes this claim to identify the views I've expressed - with links and quotes - that constitute libertarianism.
I don't really care what labels get applied to me. But - beyond the anti-war and pro-civil-liberties writing I do on a daily basis - here are views I've publicly advocated. Decide for yourself if the "libertarian" label applies:
* opposing all cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid (here and here);
* repeatedly calling for the prosecution of Wall Street (here, here and here);
* advocating for robust public financing to eliminate the domination by the rich in political campaigns, writing: "corporate influence over our political process is easily one of the top sicknesses afflicting our political culture" (here and here);
* condemning income and wealth inequality as the by-product of corruption (here and here);
* attacking oligarchs - led by the Koch Brothers - for self-pitying complaints about the government and criticizing policies that favor the rich at the expense of ordinary Americans (here);
* arguing in favor of a public option for health care reform (repeatedly);
* repeatedly condemning the influence of corporate factions in public policy making (here and here);
To apply a "right-wing libertarian" label to someone with those views and that activism is patently idiotic. Anyone who applies this label to me in light of my actual views and work is either very ignorant or very dishonest - or, most likely, both.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/01/30/1182442/-Glenn-Greenwald-Responds-to-Widespread-Lies-About-Him-on-Cato-Iraq-War-and-more#
Triana
(22,666 posts) octoberlib
(14,971 posts) 
Little Star
(17,055 posts)Maedhros
(10,007 posts)"Civil Libertarian", maybe, because that is indeed the focus of his writing: protecting our civil liberties from government overreach, regardless of the letter that appears after the President's name.
Protecting civil liberties used to be something Democrats were in favor of.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)was a very foul move.
Rex
(65,616 posts)Surely fellow posters wouldn't lie to me!
a mistake. But it's only a mistake if it offends those in power. Or embarrasses. Or reveals that what they say is not what they do, which is my biggest problem and the affront to our intelligence is "given".
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)from Andrew Sullivan (http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/18/cameron-proves-greenwald-right/):
Aerows
(39,961 posts)Response to Hissyspit (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)He is clearly in this for his own gain and it has nothing at all to do with any desire to protect anyone from anything. If his goal was really just to expose all this stuff he would dump the documents and let the chips fall where they may instead its a constant dribble of spin and inuendo.
It's tragic really. I think there is plenty of room for actual improvement in oversight of the system and at the same time recognize the value in the system itself. I would vastly prefer an actual fact based discussion of this without all the hyperbole and grandstanding. His histrionics only serve to make me tune him out as a wackjob with an agenda.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)and not light my hair on fire over this tools dramatized version of it. I can envision plenty of reasons to detain these guys Considering they are wandering around with sensitive stolen info with the potential to cause real harm to legitimate intelligence operations.
Your mileage may vary..
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)You sure could have been useful to various groups at different points in history who felt the need to start detaining innocents in large numbers. Yep, there were some outfits who could have used a person of precisely your caliber and moral code.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Yes detaining someone linked to a person who has admitted having copies of stolen classified documents is exactly like detaining innocent people out of the blue.
Your logic is impeccable!
Detaining someone linked to a person who has admitted having copies of stolen classified documents is exactly like detaining innocent people out of the blue. David Miranda did not steal classified documents, hasn't been accused by anyone of holding classified documents, has nothing to do with this issue.
It's really sad that you can not understand that. You share a link with your mother. Should your mother be arrested for a "crime" that you committed?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Happens all the time in criminal cases where people other than the accused are questioned. More logic fail.
Yup if I committed a serious crime I would be shocked if my mother wasn't questioned. Especially if she was carrying the very same tools I used to commit the crime. It's really sad that you cant understand that....
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Miranda has committed no crime. He carried no tools that he "used to commit the crime".
If you can't understand that........you must be a tool yourself.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Maybe their physician has something to hide or their lawyer may have information about the programs that keep us safe from terrorists. The Cleaning lady, gardener, Cable guy and the garbage man should all be put on the 9 hour detention list. As long as we have gone this far, why not go through some school yearbooks and start detaining and questioning anyone "three hops out" from Greenwald and Miranda.
How far are you willing to go to "feel" safe?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)with computers and flash drives as if they didnt have a connection to someone with stolen classified information.
I feel perfectly safe BTW but thanks for caring.
But yea the cable guy and the physician are exactly the same as the partner...
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)... to assume that they would be safe travelling by countries governed by authoritarian puppet governments that have no concern for human rights and civil liberties.
On the other hand, it does make US/UK governments look desperate and stupid.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Got it.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)None of the anti-Snowden posters have gone as far as you are know - cheering on the detention, without a lawyer, for 9 hours of an innocent man and the confiscation of his property. The others seem to have some sense of what is within bounds; you, on the other hand, are leading the cheers for abuse of power. And laughing about it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Yes I am laughing at folks like you who think someone in possible possession of stolen classified documents should somehow be allowed to trek around the world unchecked.
Get used to it.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)... of what is an apologist for fascism.
"Get used to it"?
Why? Oh, yes... "because the government told us so..."
Hey, that's brilliant.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)you are the perfect definition of a rube. Why because some guy on the internet said it was true!
Pure genius you folks.
Your turn.
JackRiddler
(24,979 posts)The one with historically the bloodiest of all empires by far?
Yes, of course, always high regard for human rights!
You win because you used the ROFL smiley, by the way.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)Britain has a good human rights record compared with a large number of countries of the world; but it's not perfect.
And yes, we are to some extent a puppet government in matters of foreign policy. Less now that under Maggie T or Tony B, but to some extent we are.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am not trying to pretend that GB is the end all be all of human rights, just laughing at someone trying to portray them as the most despotic government on the planet GB is not perfect but they are far and away from trampling all over human rights.
LeftishBrit
(41,205 posts)but that does not justify this particular action.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)just stating my opinion. Sorry you have a problem with that. Sadly you will have to learn to live with it.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)They held him and questioned him and released him. Your hyperbole is exactly the kind of crap that makes it very hard to take this stuff seriously.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Fucking garbage. And, at this point, with what facts we have now, they even abused the limitations of it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Got it.. Real fact based stuff there.
Please continue with your outrage!
Guess what politicians the world over pass laws with names that have nothing to do with what the laws actually say. I am sure that will come as a total shock to you.
It's outrageous!!!!!!!
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)What a ridiculous response.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)When you have absolutely no idea what the law even is and are only going by its name.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)What are you going on about?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I wont hold my breathe.
What are you going on about...right back at you.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"LONDON (Reuters) - British authorities used anti-terrorism powers to detain the partner of a journalist with close links to Edward Snowden, the fugitive former U.S. spy agency contractor, as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on Sunday."
- snip -
"A spokesman for the British Metropolitan Police Service confirmed that a 28-year-old male had been detained at Heathrow airport under schedule seven of the 2000 Terrorism Act earlier in the day.
Britain's 'schedule seven' law gives border officials the right to question someone "to determine if that individual is a person concerned in the commission, preparation or execution of acts of terrorism."
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Why am I not surprised.
http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=379DB3B5D26A772080257A5C0048ABC1
"Unlike most other police powers, the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism."
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Just like I said.
And, no, I didn't avoid the question.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Having said that it still does not require any suspicion of terrorism to detain anyone. So claiming they arrested GG's partner on suspicion of terrorism is an outright lie made to sensationalize this story and try to instill outrage.
And that in a nutshell is my problem with the whole snowden crowd they seem willing to over exaggerate everything in order to try and play on peoples fears rather than stick to the facts which in themselves should be plenty of cause for an ongoing debate on this subject.
I am sure that wont stop you from continuing with your circus barker act.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Have you ever been held and questioned by police in a country that was hostile either to you or to your country?
I have. It is terrifying. My experience was in Eastern Europe in the 1960s. I was with others including a young person who was a citizen of the country and the only one of us who spoke the language. We had been visiting the grave of a close family member at the border between two Eastern European countries, one of which was a commonly used route for escapes from the other.
We were held for what seemed an eternity, but was not nearly as long as 9 hours.
Sitting 9 hours in detention in a hostile country is like sitting in purgatory for 9 hours. If you haven't had the experience, you are just not paranoid enough to be realistic in today's world.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)and I am quite sure they speak English there.
I have no doubt it was uncomfortable. Pretending he was in some third world country where he didn't speak the language is a bit of a stretch no?
Here's an idea when your partner has access to stolen classified info...Probably best not to travel with laptops and flash drives. Maybe I am crazy in thinking that though.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)And when you go through the Homeland Security checks at the airport, you are going through a check because your government considers you to be potentially hostile to its interests.
You are not, I assume. Neither am I.
Snowden's partner may not have viewed Great Britain as a hostile country when he flew in. But Great Britain treated him as though they believed he was hostile to them when they confiscated his private property and detained him for many hours.
So, yes, Great Britain took on the role of a hostile country when it detained, searched and seized the possessions of Greenwald's partner.
Think about it. GB is a hostile country when it wants to be. And in that situation, it wanted to be.
We are a hostile country in, for example, Yemen.
We need to have the ability to look at a situation from different points of view. That is how you arrive at the truth.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)So then I would think you would be able to look at this from the point of view of the government who found the partner of someone that has admitted to access to stolen classified documents entering their country carrying computers and flash drives..
I don't find it the least bit unreasonable to detain and question such a person and I am not sure why you would either. Unless of course you have personal knowledge that this person wasn't carrying stolen classified information.
I am all for the truth. I am finding little to none of it in these conversations. There's plenty of wild conjecture to go around on all sides though.
Were I this person there is no way in hell I would be foolish enough to think I would be able to travel to the closest ally of the country my partner was leaking classified info on, with computers and flash drives without being detained.
By the same token I wouldnt walk into the airport with guns in my carry on and expect not to be detained either.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)A journalist who publishes documents that someone else allegedly stole should not be deemed a terrorist. That is not at all what terrorism is about.
The problem is that our government in targeting Greenwald is violating our First Amendment which was adopted at a time when people remembered the American Revolution and the importance of the writings of those opposing the British government.
We need to focus on what it is that our supposed government of, by and for the people is hiding from us, the people.
Why is the executive branch taking the power to read the most intimate correspondence of Americans and especially of Americans who communicate with the world outside the US?
What is our government afraid of?
They don't have to collect ALL of our metadata to keep tabs on extremists and terrorists.
Why are they doing this? Just because they can?
The program is either a waste of money or an effort to intimidate and repress us. There is no convincing argument for a program of this side or the expenditures to expand it. It has to be stopped and soon.
Interestingly, there are two points that I make repeatedly that no one addresses or counters:
First, this program will inevitably chill our First Amendment rights. No one has presented a persuasive argument to the contrary.
Second, this program, which in its extent and execution was not known to or understood or even shared with most members of Congress, is a great threat, and may have already undermined or destroyed the fundamental concept in our Constitution of the separation of powers. This program gives to the executive the power to place the members of the other branches of government under surveillance.
No one has responded to these criticisms of the program. They just answer that the program is "legal." They don't seem to understand that the term "legal" is pretty meaningless because what is or is not legal can be easily changed. Further, the program is, as we have learned in the last few days, not always "legal" in that the laws under which it was supposedly executed have been clearly violated in a number off instances. Further, if the program, as I point out violates the Constitution, it is most definitely not "legal."
Egnever
(21,506 posts)First the law was written in response to terrorism but is not limited to terrorist suspects. So no he wasn't detained under suspicion of terrorism.
http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/section.html?readform&s=379DB3B5D26A772080257A5C0048ABC1
Unlike most other police powers, the power to stop, question, search and, if necessary, detain persons under Schedule 7 does not require prior authority or any suspicion that the person stopped is involved in terrorism.
"Does not require any suspicion of terrorism" is important if we are actually trying to be truthful as you said earlier. I think the law is excessive but it is the law. Touting that this person was by definition arrested under suspicion of terrorism is therefore a throw away line meant to incense rather than inform.
No one was deemed a terrorist nor do they need to be to be detained under this law.
As to your later points.
The meta data collected supposedly has no personally identifiable info attached to it so it is just raw data. I can envision circumstances where information is obtained on a foreign threat that needs to be chased down quickly to avoid the execution of the threat that would require quick access to that information.
The NSA is tasked with foreign intelligence not domestic and it is not within the scope of their mission to "spy" on Americans. If they are doing so then they are operating outside the scope of their mission and it should be adressed. I dont agree that meta data collection is spying on Americans or an attempt to do so. We will have to wait for the courts to decide. I dont personally care which way the courts decide on this.
I have to say the chilling effect argument would hold more water with me if there were examples of it happening. Especially in the era of the internet where people spout all kinds of crazy crap all day every day. If there were people being rounded up based on internet posts that were critical of the government maybe but there's plenty of completely vile crap out there that absolutely nothing is done about.
No I dont consider detaining someone possibly in possession of stolen classified documents as a chilling effect.
Yes we have learned in the last few days that the program in policing itself found instances of non compliance with the law. That doesnt scream to me that they are trying to purposefully circumvent the law as it seems to to you, but rather that they are working hard to ensure compliance with the law.
I think foreign surveillance is an important part of our national defense, I think it needs to be done and recognize that it has been done throughout history.
I have no issue whatsoever with any attempts to try to strengthen oversight of these programs as there is certainly potential in them for abuse. My problem is with people who want to try and use a legitimate concern of potential abuse to pretend Obama is purposely trying to spy on the American public.
As far as it being unconstitutional I have yet to see any court ruling claiming that to be the case. It may be and the court may find it to be though I doubt it, on that point we clearly disagree.
These are not new programs, they have been under discussion for years decades even, I hope the discussion continues as I think as technology evolves the potentials for abuse also evolve. I find the congress critters sudden dismay at all of this extremely disingenuous considering most of them have voted several times to continue these programs.
Having said all of that I find Snowden and GG to be despicable characters. Snowden because he stole information on foreign intelligence and fled the country to divulge it to enemies and allies alike. GG because of his seeming inability to report the details without trying to twist them to his agenda or use them to try to make a buck.
"Just the facts mam". That's what I want.
I do appreciate you having a civil discussion on it though and hope you continue to do so. I see your point of view and I do think it has validity I just don't agree with it.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)The fact that the government tracks who communicates with whom in what political faction or party does chill speech. It may be hard to prove, but it will happen. Sooner or later, someone will be able to show an injury. That's how intrusive the collection of metadata is.
Based on your post, I assume you don't mind if the Chinese or the Iranians or the Russians or the North Koreans read your e-mails. I assume that as long as someone is foreign they are welcome to read your e-mails.
I would like to see an international protocol and agreement that would require all nations to protect the privacy of all citizens in all countries. That is what the Germans have been trying to get (at least that is what they claimed when this scandal first came out).
The metadata does not need to have names and addresses attached in order to enable government and private contractor employees to figure out who we are. Many of us use our own names on the internet especially on certain of our accounts.
And the metadata itself often gives away our identity. Whitehouse.gov for example is the address for a limited although good number of people. The name of a law firm will also limit the number of individuals who wrote an e-mail. So will the identification in a university e-mail -- let's say from the account of a scientist.
The phone numbers of members of Congress are easily identified or found out by people in D.C.
Lawyers' numbers, doctors' number, those are all published.
So the fact that only metadata is collected does not adequately protect the privacy of a lot of people.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Again I think you have valid concerns and I totally agree with many of them.
There has to be balance struck between privacy and legitimate law enforcement. The internet has changed how we communicate and along with all the innocent communications there are also communications from people plotting nefarious things be they terrorist or KKK clans or just people committing fraud. We would be as foolish to ignore these activities simply for the sake of privacy as we would be to relinquish all of our privacy in order to track them down. I dont find it as easy a problem as an either or choice.
I agree that although the meta data is ostensibly anonymous it would be fairly trivial to tie an actual person to the data. Having said that doing so requires a conscious decision on someones part to do so. If the meta data was being published publicly I would have a huge problem with it. As it stands it is not, it is collected with supposedly strict guidelines on what conditions need to be met before tying an actual person to the data. I have Zero problems with installing more oversight on these operations or even finding better ways of mining the data without it being so trivial to tie actual names to data in fact I am all for either or both.
Where I draw the line is sensationalizing the issue and trying to play on peoples fears of their emails being read when the odds of that happening even in the climate as it currently stands are infinitesimal at best.
I love the internet as it stands and there are plenty of forces out there that want nothing more than to stifle the freedom it enables. I am sure you are aware of the various treaties being tossed around on internet regulation.
My greatest fear in all of this is that the current hysteria surrounding this issue will enable them to push some of the abhorrent reforms being proposed through under the guise of protecting your privacy.
Again I appreciate the honest discussion free of snark.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)As I have explained in other posts, my personal history and my knowledge of the history and languages of European countries have made me very sensitive on the issue of human rights.
The line between oppression and freedom is very thin and has to be defended against even what appear to be innocent well meant invasions.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)just watch
Response to Egnever (Reply #27)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am growing ever more weary of the drama this guy brings to the subject.
Response to Egnever (Reply #59)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I am certainly not going to make a judgement based on Greenwalds sensationalized version of what happened. You of course are free to do so though.
Response to Egnever (Reply #68)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I would expect no less.
I am not trying to stop you.
Excuse me while I dont join in.
Response to Egnever (Reply #89)
Name removed Message auto-removed
frylock
(34,825 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)You are free to make your own judgments at your own pace.
frylock
(34,825 posts)i have.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)I really don't understand posters who whine about how no one is talking about what they want to talk about, and HOW they want to talk about it. Go talk about it! Make your points! No one is stopping you. No one is forcing you to read about Greenwald.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Sorry it doesnt agree with your views but if you dont like it dont read it.
Your turn.
Maybe in your next post you can tell me what times of day I am allowed to post and which particular forums I am allowed to post in.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)You choose to whine about what other people say like it's stopping you from starting a discussion you want to have. I guess that's one way to go, but I'll never understand it.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Oh I get it posts here are only meant to be echo chambers. God forbid there's discussion in them.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)system and at the same time recognize the value in the system itself." Yes, that's good. What do Greenwald's actions have to do with getting that accomplished.
Calling him names is childish and should be beneath you.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
hootinholler
(26,449 posts)So fucking typical.
So Fucking Transparent.
I'm continually amazed at the lengths we as a government are going to kill this story.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)it was to allow any of this to become acceptable in the first place.
leftstreet
(36,107 posts)That's what many will miss
Thx for highlighting that
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and other materials"? What did he think British customs officials would do when they saw that pile, ask for his autograph?
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 12:01 PM - Edit history (1)
He is a Brazilian citizen and not suspected of any crime. They have no cause to confiscate his gear, which is the normal gear of a young man traveling internationally.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Whisp
(24,096 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)and British customs officials are not known for their niceness. They can be dicks over far less and apparently do as they please. This from personal experience and conversations. Traveling internationally with just a laptop and phone is a pain in the ass these days as you probably know.
Response to ucrdem (Reply #93)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)20-somethings are known to carry electronics on vacation.
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Are you always so fact deficient?
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)How did they manage the restraint not to shoot him on sight!?
Dragonfli
(10,622 posts)Spouses of journalists that engage in "suspected" terrorism are known to receive even more training in the CD killing arts than your average spy/assassins in most other fields of clandestine attacks, they are also well versed in the lesser known USB garotte maneuvers used almost daily to murder unsuspecting border agents.
In light of the facts, a more proper question would be, "why have the agents in charge of his detention not been fired for placing the entire airport in extreme danger due to their lackadaisical approach to protecting the public from such a dangerous suspect?"
Clearly the act of a prudent agent would have been to shoot the terror suspect multiple times at center mass as soon as such weapons of mass destruction were detected. They seriously need to review their response tactics when dealing with such dangerous enemies before a great many civilians are killed by similar threats!!!.
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Thank you for pointing it out 
HardTimes99
(2,049 posts)only justified in confiscating his personal property?
WTF. We fought to defend those fuckers from the Nazis in World War II only to find out that they are now channeling their inner SS. Showing us all that 'might makes right.' This really takes the fucking cake.
deurbano
(2,895 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)and would not have gone through customs. The OP is quite clear - he was detained under the Terrorism Act of 2000.
He wasn't coming from Russia, either, but that's not particularly relevant, apart from perhaps showing your obsession with Russia.
Anyway, I thought you claim that The Guardian is secretly controlled by the British government, who are doing all this to embarrass Obama?
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)There's no good reason for this individual to have been hauling all those electronic gimcracks through Heathrow airport, and if he really didn't know any better, anyone who cared about him would have made sure he didn't. But he did. So either Glenn gambled and lost, or, less likely, the predictable confiscation was basically staged to generate the predictable reaction. In either case this guy was either badly used or, if he was briefed, isn't innocent.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)You were so badly informed on the basic facts, that your opinion on this is worthless. Plus you think The Guardian is a front for British intelligence.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Have you ever flown in a plane that didn't have a propeller? Yes it's a huge pain, no I don't endorse it, but anyone who's flown in the last decade could have told this fellow that he was asking for trouble. So I find it hard to believe he didn't know any better.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)You said "there's no good reason for this individual to have been hauling all those electronic gimcracks through Heathrow airport", like someone who last travelled before the invention of laptops or cellphones.
"He could have read the docs that print with the ticket, for example."
What does that even mean? For example of what? What has the ticket to do with being detained for 9 hours under the 2000 Terrorism Act, and having your property confiscated for 7 days?
"Yes it's a huge pain, no I don't endorse it, but anyone who's flown in the last decade could have told this fellow that he was asking for trouble."
What is a huge pain? We know that it is extremely rare for anyone to suffer this. No, most people who fly do not have this happen to them.
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)idwiyo
(5,113 posts)ocpagu
(1,954 posts)
Octafish
(55,745 posts)War is war you know. And money trumps democracy and the law.
TheBlackAdder
(28,189 posts)
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)So GREENWALD is floating the idea that anybody and everybody connected to him and moving around among members of this group who might have possession of the materials ought to have some kind of immunity from any questioning.
The "intimidation" has been working both ways, what with all the portents of what will be done if the GREENWALD/SNOWDEN stipulations aren't met.
Proceed...
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)That's what you came up with?
Guardian newspaper = government?
UTUSN
(70,686 posts)Response to UTUSN (Reply #83)
Name removed Message auto-removed
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)and confiscated all of his electronic equipment not for reasons of suspected terrorism, nor for crimes against the U.K., but, it appears, solely for reasons that inured to the benefit of the U.S. (Snowden stole U.S. security data, not the U.K.'s ) I wonder if Parliament realized this law could be used to intercept a journalist's material solely at the request of an allied country?
Whether it was Greenwald floating the idea or not, the idea that immunity should extend to someone in possession of a journalist's materials IMO is worthy of a court's review.
As far as intimidation working both ways: Government intimidation tactics have the proven and real ability to threaten someone's life and liberty. That really is no comparison to a journalist trying to protect his (and other's) life and liberty, by informing a government that he has additional material he has not yet published (I'm assuming that's what you're implying by the "both ways"
.
Do you have a link to those "portents of what will be done" or a link to any of "the GREENWALD/SNOWDEN stipulations"? Easy to see how one could miss those among the voluminous, world-wide stories of the N.S.A. spying on all of us.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Keith Vaz said the full facts of David Miranda's nine-hour detention must be established quickly.
...
"Bearing in mind it is a new use of terrorism legislation to detain someone in these circumstances... I'm certainly interested in knowing so I will write to the police to ask for the justification of the use of terrorism legislation - they may have a perfectly reasonable explanation.
"But if we are going to use the act in this way... then at least we need to know so everyone is prepared."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23750289
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Thanks for answering that question!
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)“Schedule 7 is used only for the purpose of countering terrorism”.
25. The Commissioner is aware that the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) published practice advice on the use of Schedule 7 in 2009. This publication clearly states that Schedule 7 powers should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose.
http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50361870.pdf
But they've now decided differently, without informing any one. Which sort of make the UK a police state.
Maedhros
(10,007 posts)That makes him as much a "journalist" as anyone. Note that the Constitution protects speech and freedom to publish, not some profession defined as "journalism."
If he was a mule for stolen security data then it is absolutely inappropriate for the UK government to use a law that applies to suspected terrorists to detain Miranda. Such abuse of anti-terrorism laws points up the necessity for people like Snowden to blow the whistle on them.
As for intimidation, once again I see the Government being cast in the role of victim and the persons revealing government wrongdoing as the villain. That, my friend, is the authoritarian mindset.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ucrdem
(15,512 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)So stop with the hysteria and let us know when your partner gets his stuff back.
Teddy Kennedy had problems in the USA
burnodo
(2,017 posts)Response to Progressive dog (Reply #97)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Tell them all about how the British government hasn't been used to further and legitimize our policies.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)so Britain is a US puppet. What stunning proof!!!
Union Scribe
(7,099 posts)Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)When you have poll numbers from the UK on them being puppets, you should post them or you could just cite a poll on UK Iraq vets. to support the claims.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)If you were he, how would you have responded to the same thing? (And no fair weaseling out saying you'd never be in that situation.)
By the way, the British people themselves have many times in the past said their own govt is a puppet of the U.S., so that's nothing new and is certainly not a "hysterical" claim.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)stop making stuff up or stop pretending to be a journalist.
I'm an American and I've never seen the polls of the British people showing that they believe their govt. is a US puppet.
Maybe they just have their own version of tea-baggers over there
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Making Greenwald's point for him
by David Atkins
I've had my issues with Greenwald. But I don't care if you believe that Greenwald and Snowden are the embodiments of the Anti-Christ. I don't care what documents Greenwald's spouse was carrying, how classified they were, or whether you believe that Greenwald is a journalist. I don't care.
When a government detains someone who is very clearly not a terrorist for nine hours without access to an attorney under a terrorism statute, that government has proven every point Greenwald wanted to make. The argument is over right there.
And every "progressive" with a beef against Greenwald who attempts to defend the UK's actions does nothing more than prove Greenwald's point. Governments that detain civil libertarian bloggers and journalists as terrorists deserve every heaping of scorn they get, as do those who defend them.
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/08/making-greenwalds-point-for-him-by.html
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)is not a secret law. Greenwald used his partner as a courier and the UK government didn't like it. Poor Glenn, his partner is the first person ever held at an airport. He should petition Parliament to make a new law to prevent this.
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)stolen information.,then they vow revenge because their partner was detained under the laws of the country he tried to smuggle the information to. We all know that.
I like the way the Atkins article first says he doesn't care if Greenwald is a journalist and then claims that by detaining Greenwald's partner, they are detaining a journalist and civil libertarian blogger.
The ANTI-Christ embodiment was very original, so many of these Snowden/Greenwald apologias reference Nazi and Stasi.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts)
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)JimDandy
(7,318 posts)“What’s amazing is this law, called the Terrorism Act, gives them a right to detain and question you about your activities with a terrorist organization or your possible involvement in or knowledge of a terrorism plot,” Mr. Greenwald said. “The only thing they were interested in was N.S.A. documents and what I was doing with Laura Poitras. It’s a total abuse of the law.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-t,ied-to-leaks.html?_r=2&
Progressive dog
(6,900 posts)a puppet. You should tell them.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)Google: UK "puppet state" U.S, and all the many variants of that, and you'll pull up millions of hits.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)Article 8 – Right to respect for private and family life:
1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
Article 10 - Freedom of expression
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/European_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_and_Fundamental_Freedoms
Criminals. Simple as that.
---------------------------------
Time for Greenwald to accept Brazil's offer of protection. If not for him, at least for his partner.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)I have no doubt that this was instigated by the U.S. I am not suggesting it was BO but it was his henchmen. They have given their "allies" orders to screw Glenn Greenwald. I'm sure they would have renditioned him to Egypt if they thought they could get away with it to cover up their illegal, criminal, treasonous activities.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)The U.K. used their terrorism law to detain Greenwald's partner for reasons that certainly benefited the U.S. Govt (see post #270)
GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)Are we becoming clearer yet on the the true nature of the societies we live in?
Spitfire of ATJ
(32,723 posts)
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)surprise
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Waiting for more facts to emerge is not a bad thing. It should be encouraged.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)
Bolo Boffin
(23,796 posts)There is no excuse for this whatsoever. Whoever authorized this should lose their job(s).
Ash_F
(5,861 posts)Meanwhile they cut education funding in the attempt to out-rightwing America(they won't beat us).
Was it worth it, Britain?
boston bean
(36,221 posts)The abuse of power in this instance, so bold and in you face, tells me that we are truly living in a world that has transgressed into facism in some ways.
Babel_17
(5,400 posts)I won't jump to any conclusions but I'm sure many of us have similar suspicions as to to the motive(s) for this. I think it's not any one thing.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)London Heathrow is to be avoided in the normal course of air travel. It is one of the more screwed up airports in the world.
Miranda had been in Berlin with Laura Poitras, and he was headed back to Rio de Janeiro. One possibility is that he was acting as a courier between Poitras and Greenwald, since both of them probably now find air travel hazardous. UK authorities would, of course, suspect this and detain him. By routing through Heathrow, Greenwald and Miranda could expect this and generate a story out of it.
But an even more likely reason to route through Heathrow, instead of Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, or Lisbon, was to meet someone at the airport and drop or pick up something. Scooping him up and interviewing him would disrupt any such plan.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)"One possibility is that he was acting as a courier between Poitras and Greenwald, since both of them probably now find air travel hazardous."
If they find air flight 'hazardous', it would be a grave cause for concern.
"UK authorities would, of course, suspect this and detain him. "
'Of course' they would if they were authoritarian, and wanted to make air travel hazardous for more people.
"By routing through Heathrow, Greenwald and Miranda could expect this and generate a story out of it."
Routing through Heathrow is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. If they did expect this, then they were expecting an authoritarian response. That's what they got, anyway.
"But an even more likely reason to route through Heathrow, instead of Amsterdam, Paris, Rome, or Lisbon, was to meet someone at the airport and drop or pick up something. Scooping him up and interviewing him would disrupt any such plan. "
You appear to have dropped a bit of a spy novel that you're writing into your post by mistake. Your fiction may be a good read, but DU is not the place for it.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Thus, it would be "hazardous" for them to travel via certain air hubs.
They have probably committed offenses under the Official Secrets Act, and note that there is no "public interest defence" in the act.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)while in Hong Kong, I don't think it's probable they've broken the Official Secrets Act. The British journalists who have worked with them on the stories remained undetained. But in an authoritarian world with out-of-control superpowers and subsidiary countries, there is the possibility they would also be detained by an abuse of a terrorism act, when they are quite clearly nothing to do with terrorism.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Since the intercept capabilities are used in counter-terrorism, disclosure of them impairs British anti-terrorism intelligence gathering.
Hence, Greenwald's activities can be considered as aiding terrorists.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)I just wanted that to appear in the title, so anyone skimming through the thread can see your authoritarian attitude.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Does the Guardian reporter ever appear at Guardian headquarters in the UK?
Actually, it appears that Greenwald works for the Guardian's US subsidiary out of New York.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)They have not been detained or questioned. There is no suggestion this has broken the Official Secrets Act. Your invocation of it is a red herring.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)To what crime?
Committing journalism?
Greenwald has committed no crime. Nor has his partner or Poitras.
Watch the creeping facism there.
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)... you first need a conspiracy. Or else, you'll just sound stupid.
Which conspiracy are you accusing Greenwald of? And what proofs do you have?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)The UK does not have the same First Amendment protections of the press that the United States has.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)Committing journalism?
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Try finding a real charge, rather than saying the first thing that comes into your head.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Information entrusted in confidence to other States or international organisations..
(1)This section applies where—.
(a)any information, document or other article which—.
(i)relates to security or intelligence, defence or international relations; and.
(ii)has been communicated in confidence by or on behalf of the United Kingdom to another State or to an international organisation,.
has come into a person’s possession as a result of having been disclosed (whether to him or another) without the authority of that State or organisation or, in the case of an organisation, of a member of it; and
(b)the disclosure without lawful authority of the information, document or article by the person into whose possession it has come is not an offence under any of the foregoing provisions of this Act..
(2)Subject to subsection (3) below, the person into whose possession the information, document or article has come is guilty of an offence if he makes a damaging disclosure of it knowing, or having reasonable cause to believe, that it is such as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, that it has come into his possession as there mentioned and that its disclosure would be damaging..
(3)A person does not commit an offence under subsection (2) above if the information, document or article is disclosed by him with lawful authority or has previously been made available to the public with the authority of the State or organisation concerned or, in the case of an organisation, of a member of it..
(4)For the purposes of this section “security or intelligence”, “defence” and “international relations” have the same meaning as in sections 1, 2 and 3 above and the question whether a disclosure is damaging shall be determined as it would be in relation to a disclosure of the information, document or article in question by a Crown servant in contravention of section 1(3), 2(1) and 3(1) above..
(5)For the purposes of this section information or a document or article is communicated in confidence if it is communicated on terms requiring it to be held in confidence or in circumstances in which the person communicating it could reasonably expect that it would be so held.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/6/section/6
ocpagu
(1,954 posts)UK has no legal excuse for this intimidation act and violation of international law.
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)
wtmusic
(39,166 posts)Yes, it could be some unearthly coincidence of improbable occurrences. Or your worldview could just be off-kilter.
idwiyo
(5,113 posts) Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)No one with the moral high road would do this. This clarifies things.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)the delays for hours, armed guards, using local law to block access, demanding camera gear and returning it in a broken state.
The anti-terror laws are used to crush freedom of the press. I wish journalists would band together and help each other more. If an experienced journalist would please contact Laura Leigh, I'm sure she would have a lot to share.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)It really is amazing they are even on a "Democratic" website.
RL
Arkana
(24,347 posts)We're merely suggesting that perhaps Glenn Greenwald's partner being detained at an airport is not evidence of a massive government conspiracy.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)without any evidence at all.
And, yes, a few are defending it. Go back over the thread.
RetroLounge
(37,250 posts)and then be careful with the word "we" unless you feel fine grouped with these other.
In that case, "we" have nothing left to say.
RL
wtbymark
(2,038 posts)Oh, I guess it's been at least 7 years since I've posted anything. I still read it quite often.
What I'm most amazed by is the amount of trolls with veteran numbers by their names. Have the pizza parties disappeared? how much do they get paid? It's good that the real veterans know all the originals. Does Skinner still run this place? Good to see Will Pitt here occasionally (I still think he's the Ben Franklin of our time)
IMO - good morning 'horridness' (and agent Mike) we already live in a totalitarian fascist state. period.
JimDandy
(7,318 posts)in which to make your first post in 7 years.
Some trolls with veteran numbers are gone now (slackmaster, for example). Skinner still runs the show.
I can certainly understand your aversion to posting here-It's been surreal to see DUers defending the indefensible. Would you at least rec threads you feel deserve it, though? That would substantially help those who are left fighting the 'good fight'.
Hope to see more of you around the board...
Catherina
(35,568 posts)
gulliver
(13,180 posts)Thanks, but I'll wait for a journalist to report this story before I believe it.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)PARTNER OF REPORTER AT CENTER OF NSA LEAK DETAINED
PARTNER OF REPORTER AT CENTER OF NSA LEAK DETAINED
By DANICA KIRKA
— Aug. 18 7:46 PM EDT
You are here
Home » Edward Snowden » Partner of reporter at center of NSA leak detained
LONDON (AP) — The partner of a journalist who received leaks from former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden was detained for nearly nine hours Sunday under anti-terror legislation at Heathrow Airport, triggering claims that authorities are trying to interfere with reporting on the issue.
David Miranda, the partner of Guardian reporter Glenn Greenwald, was held for nearly the maximum time authorities are allowed to detain individuals under the Terrorism Act's Schedule 7, which authorizes security agencies to stop and question people at borders. Greenwald said Miranda's cellphone, laptops and memory sticks were confiscated.
"This is obviously a rather profound escalation of their attacks on the news-gathering process and journalism," Greenwald said in a post on the Guardian website. "It's bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It's worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic."
Greenwald has written a series of stories about the NSA's electronic surveillance programs based on files handed over by Snowden. The former contractor fled the United States and is now in Russia, where he has received temporary asylum.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)UK detains partner of journalist linked to Snowden
LONDON | Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:26pm EDT
LONDON (Reuters) - British authorities used anti-terrorism powers to detain the partner of a journalist with close links to Edward Snowden, the fugitive former U.S. spy agency contractor, as he passed through London's Heathrow airport on Sunday.
The 28-year-old David Miranda, a Brazilian citizen and partner of U.S. journalist Glenn Greenwald who writes for Britain's Guardian newspaper, was questioned for nine hours, before being released without charge, a report on the Guardian website said.
Rio de Janeiro-based Greenwald has interviewed Snowden, wanted by U.S. authorities after leaking confidential data, and used 15,000 to 20,000 documents Snowden passed to him to reveal details of the U.S. National Security Agency's surveillance methods.
Snowden is now in Russia, where he has been granted a year's asylum but the U.S. Obama administration has vigorously pursued ways to bring him back to the United States to face espionage charges.
A spokesman for the British Metropolitan Police Service confirmed that a 28-year-old male had been detained at Heathrow airport under schedule seven of the 2000 Terrorism Act earlier in the day.
gulliver
(13,180 posts)They don't mention anything about intimidation, so I will still need to see why the guy was detained. I imagine they have completely valid reasons if they know the guy is Greenwald's partner. Greenwald hasn't provided any evidence that they don't, and his accusations of intimidation are worthless.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Terrorism legislation is NEVER over-reaching or abused.
The BBC reports that "a Home Office spokesman said on Monday: 'Schedule 7 forms an essential part of the U.K.'s security arrangements — it is for the police to decide when it is necessary and proportionate to use these powers.' "
grasswire
(50,130 posts)You speak of him as if he is a criminal.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)@CBSNews: Partner of Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who broke the NSA leak story, was detained at Heathrow Airport for almost 9 hours...
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57599057/partner-of-reporter-at-center-of-nsa-leak-detained
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The Brazilian government expresses grave concern about the episode today in London, where Brazilian citizen was detained and held incommunicado at Heathrow for a period of 9 hours in action based on British legislation to combat terrorism. It is unjustifiable as it involves (an) individual against whom do not weigh any charges that may justify the use of such legislation. The Brazilian government hopes that incidents like today registered with the Brazilian citizen (are) not repeated.
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
midnight
(26,624 posts)FarCenter
(19,429 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=0
Whisp
(24,096 posts)What moron would think he could just jaunt around the world with classified docs from a thief?
And if anyone cared about his safety, why the hell would they let him do it?
This programed clown show has been brought to you by: Ca-Ching GG Incorporated. (other investors not to be known)
FarCenter
(19,429 posts)Diplomats can do this, since the diplomatic pouch is not subject to search.
But the luggage and personal effects of travelers are always subject to search at the discretion of customs.
It would be much better to send the encrypted files over the internet. The only reason to ever meet in person or use a courier is for key exchange.
Whisp
(24,096 posts)Or maybe he didn't have them on him for the trip there, but picked them up in Berlin from her?
That should raise yet another eyebrow.
Do you want to be a princess and do nothing all day?
That would explain these flights of fancy.
Civilization2
(649 posts)I have not reads any comments here yet but an curious how the pro-police-state few will defend this outrage.
The spooks have jumped the shark.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=1&
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
cthulu2016
(10,960 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I think Greenwald might have been stupid enough to have additional material.
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Doubtful he would be that obvious about it if he was going to get said documents though.
Catherina
(35,568 posts)Everything that "Mr Greenwald said" came straight from the Guardian article. Except for the sentence "Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald" which came out of nowhere. Mr Greenwald said no such thing in that Guardian article, or the article he wrote that Savage also quoted from. They cleverly sandwiched that inflammatory speculation between two indirect quotes. That speculation doesn't even make sense because Laura Poitras is an expert in electronically transmitting secure, encrypted files. It makes even less sense after the NYT throws in "All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden". Both Poitras and Greenwald have had the full "trove" since Hong Kong. They don't need to send 'Snowden's documents', something they each already have, back and forth to each other trans-atlantically like that.
Mr. Greenwald said someone who identified himself as a security official from Heathrow Airport called him early on Sunday and informed him that Mr. Miranda had been detained, at that point for three hours. The British authorities, he said, told Mr. Miranda that they would obtain permission from a judge to arrest him for 48 hours, but he was released at the end of the nine hours, around 1 p.m. Eastern time.
Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said. Ms. Poitras, in turn, gave Mr. Miranda different documents to pass to Mr. Greenwald. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden. The British authorities seized all of his electronic media — including video games, DVDs and data storage devices — and did not return them, Mr. Greenwald said.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=1&
What's more likely is that the Five Eyes countries need to intercept, or at least find out, what "dribs and drabs" Greenwald's might make next and so they can pre-emptively lie. Evo Morales plane, Lavabit, Silent Circle, and now this incident.
"They spent the entire day asking about the reporting I was doing and other Guardian journalists were doing on the NSA stories.
"The principal point, since they kept him for the full nine hours, is to try and send a message of intimation and bullying.
"I don't understand why they don't realise that all it's going to accomplish is the exact opposite effect - I'm going to report more aggressively and with a more emboldened mind," Mr Greenwald told the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-23750289
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)Glenn, you get to trade this cross you've been dragging around:
for this one:
And of course there's so much renewed attention on you, wonderful you!!
Julie--helping beleaguered attention whores to find the silver lining in every situation
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)The state actually used crosses to destroy people they didn't like and make them an example.
I'm not sure your metaphor works quite the way you'd like.
And could you bring some more substance next time?
JNelson6563
(28,151 posts)And yeah, crosses are appropriate as hell to those who have always considered themselves persecuted.
I would say "sorry" you didn't like my post but I'd be lying, I don't care is the honest truth.
Julie
sibelian
(7,804 posts)Sorry, there isn't time.
PLONK.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)"When I was in Hong Kong, I spoke to my partner in Rio via Skype and told him I would send an electronic encrypted copy of the documents," Greenwald told the Daily Beast. "I did not end up doing it. Two days later his laptop was stolen from our house and nothing else was taken. Nothing like that has happened before. I am not saying it's connected to this, but obviously the possibility exists."
http://politix.topix.com/homepage/6798-who-stole-computer-from-glenn-greenwalds-home
Puzzledtraveller
(5,937 posts)
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)unless there were some stated threats given to Miranda during his interview/interrogation...This is more like "bureaucratic harassment" since Heathrow police rolled the dice on Miranda carrying something good and crapped out, and decided to hold him the entire 9 hours just because they could...I'd have thought true intimidation would involve something a lot more sinister...
I'm not saying GG has to accept it, and I can understand and appreciate his level of "pissed off", but he must know how many powerful people are looking for any way to nail him or anyone associated with him and be cautious, since these people fight back in their own ways....
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)"One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks."
baronjake
(11 posts)and quit acting out like a child. You need a good spanking. Well, you would probably like that. However, you frighten no one.
"You need a good spanking. Well, you would probably like that."
Seriously?
WTF?
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)They don't really have much beyond slander, so you end up seeing a lot of it.
obxhead
(8,434 posts)It's about tarnishing the good name of the one who can do no wrong.
The truth hurts, and they can't fucking stand it.
Starry Messenger
(32,342 posts)Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)SoapBox
(18,791 posts)I'm sick of your blather...your cred is GONE.
Hissyspit
(45,788 posts)Do you have anything?
http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE97I10E20130819
"One U.S. security official told Reuters that one of the main purposes of the British government's detention and questioning of Miranda was to send a message to recipients of Snowden's materials, including the Guardian, that the British government was serious about trying to shut down the leaks."