They must be scared shitless or high on power.

[boston bean]

The Morales plane incident, now Greenwald's partner being detained.

This is surreal. Almost unbelievable. Never seen anything like it never thought I would either.

I don't think we've seen the end of these abuses. I hope the press wakes up.

[abelenkpe]

1. Press is owned by a handful of corporations

They report what benefits them, preserves their power, and increases their profits.

[Triana]

5. Exactly. The press is useless now.

They used to expose extremism. Now, they're part of it.

[Whisp]

14. That includes the Guardian then. Good you see that.

Media is not to be trusted, generally. They have their own agendas.
Very good.

[Marr]

106. The Guardian is owned by the Scott Trust, not some corporate conglomerate. /nt

[go west young man]

116. The Guardian is much better than most stateside "news" outlets,

however, they get quite a bit of their "news" from the AP which often has a pro US spin to it.

[Marr]

119. I'd agree with that.

It's a good outlet, but not perfect. US "media" is downright clownish by comparison.

[darkangel218]

76. Hes owned by choice. nt

[City Lights]

97. Bingo! nt

[Whisp]

2. Would you let anyone you know trapse around with stolen government documents

and then be surprised if they got stopped?

Really, this is a serious question.

And did he have that stuff on him on the visit to Poitras, or did he pick it all up from her and get caught with it on the way back...

You got to admit there are some puzzling questions here, even if early in the story.

[Bonobo]

4. The right of the people to be secure

in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[msanthrope]

7. Can you tell me how that applies to a Brazilian in Heathrow? nt

[Scootaloo]

31. Can you tell me why it shouldn't?

Seems to me that we have that sort of law in the US for a very ethical, common-sense reason, and regardless of the lack of such a law in the UK, there's no reason on earth we Americans should not have a problem with the idea being so crudely abandoned, much less by one of our closest allies in the world.

[geek tragedy]

49. The UK has no constitution.

[Scootaloo]

71. Irrelevant to my point.

Can you explain to me why only Americans should have the sort of law represented by the 4th amendment? If so, what makes us above the "lesser" people who deserve no such thing, or what makes them such undeserving lessors?

Pr perhaps do you feel that said law is a bad idea, and that the US should follow the example of those other nations and do away with that law? If so can you make a coherent argument for why?

[geek tragedy]

83. Up to the UK to sort that out themselves. They can demand it at the voting place.

Their formal head of state is a monarch, so different mentality.

[mwooldri]

87. Great Britain and Northern Ireland do have a constitution.

However it is not tidied up as in the USA and elsewhere into one document. It's a variety of laws, going back to the Magna Carta and beyond.

[msanthrope]

65. It's a strange exceptionalism you espouse. nt

[Scootaloo]

69. Not really, simply a question of ethical thought.

Here in the US we frame our Bill of Rights in as much an ethical light as a legal one. We see abuses of say, one's right to worship freely as a gross ethical violation. we see someone forced to testify against themselves as an ethical violation. We see forcing a person to provide for their oppressors as an ethical violation. Another thing Americans generally consider an ethical violation? The notion of property and effects being seized and searched, with any accusations or charges coming ex post facto.

Most Americans, though certainly not all, also tend to agree that humans are equal and should all be treated ethically, regardless of where they are.

Bluntly phrased, most Americans think everyone in the world should have the same rights and freedoms we've enshrined in our first ten Amendments, at the least. This is why Americans are affronted by the sectarian targeting of religious minorities in Egypt. This is why so many Americans are up in arms against the way GLBT people are now being treated in Russia. It's why so many are appalled at the child labor practices of India or the slavery in China or the global sex trade.

By your stance that "the law is the law!" even in violation of these ethical precepts most of us hold.. .You're the one making the exception. Britain should be allowed to treat people like this because, hey! It's their law! Or perhaps that Brits and Brazilians shouldn't expect ethical treatment?

Of course this is also an exception among exceptions - I doubt you'd support the application of this bullshit seize-then-justify action to anyone else other than this one person. Furthermore, I imagine you make even MORE exceptions over "hey, it's their law, you have to respect that!" when it comes to say, legal restrictions on Women in Saudi Arabia.

[msanthrope]

73. The exceptionalism I referred to is that you seem to want an American law applied at Heathrow that

isn't applied to Americans at Heathrow, nor at any entry or exit point to and from America.

Entry and egress from America isn't controlled by the 4th Amendment, Scootaloo. It's controlled by a body of law that originates from the 5th Act of the first Congress, long before the Bill of Right was ratified--i.e. the Tarriff Act of July 31st, 1789. US Customs** controls the entry and egress of persons and objects. While the 4th Amendment certainly informs the debate over border searches, border search is a clearly defined exception to the Warrants clause--

"But a port of entry is not a traveler's home. His right to be let alone neither prevents the search of his luggage nor the seizure of unprotected, but illegal, materials when his possession of them is discovered during such a search. Customs officials characteristically inspect luggage and their power to do so is not questioned in this case; it is an old practice and is intimately associated with excluding illegal articles from the country."

United States v. Thirty-seven Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 376 (19)

When discussing how American laws should be applied worldwide, I think your arguments would be more forceful if you had a firmer grasp of which laws are applied here, to Americans, and when.





**You can see how US Customs has evolved over time, here:

http://nemo.cbp.gov/opa/TimeLine_062409.swf

[Scootaloo]

74. You can't grasp the difference between law and ethics, can you?

You seem to have the idea that if it's the law, then that by definition makes it right.

[msanthrope]

78. Well, one does need to ascertain that they are discussing the same law and ethics, right?

Now that I've told you which laws apply at US borders, and you seem to have accepted that, I am ready to debate law and ethics with you at your leisure.

[Scootaloo]

80. Already covered it.

You know, where I initially pointed out that I'm speaking from the standpoint of ethics? This subthread of posts to both you and Geek?

Again, you seem to be leaning on "the law is good because it's the law and therefor good." Am I mistaken here?

[msanthrope]

81. I am sorry, but what is your standpoint on the ethics of the exception to the Warrants

clause at US borders and the primacy of Customs law?

[bvar22]

99. A question of ethical thought?

Well, THERE is your problem.
Ethical Thought is soooo DU2 and "OLD" Democratic Party.

We've moved on.
We have "New Democrats" now,
and there are NO lines that can't be crossed as long as the Blue Team sits in the White House.

See, its ALL very simple.
You no longer have to STAND for anything,
and get to insult those who DO!
EasyPeasy!

[MuseRider]

101. Egads

I was reading through these posts and my mind was bending and bending until it was about ready to snap and then you show up. Thank you as always bvar22. Ethics? Nah, who needs 'em.

What the hell, just really, what the hell has happened here?

[creeksneakers2]

108. He's talking about ethics now

Didn't this all start with another of many quotes of the fourth amendment?

From there its now another attack on skeptics of the dominant DU world view.

Discussion would be better if we debated points with facts and logic.

[bvar22]

118. " if we debated points with facts and logic."

I couldn't agree more,
and I'm waiting for the "Facts & Logic" from those who are insisting that the Snowden Revelations of run-away, unaccountable domestic spying is:

*no big deal

*all hype

*the NSA is NOT spying on us

*they we should just get used to it

*metadata doesn't matter

*that it was wrong when Bush-the-Lesser did it,
but its OK now.


Let me know when they show up.

[MrMickeysMom]

122. huh?

Better you should ask, "can you tell me how a human being has little control over his/her life under any such rules?

They don't, we don't and you should re-examine where we are headed under the guise of terrorism dragnet functions like the ones the UK and US have conjured up.

[Whisp]

10. so if he had kiddie porn in those files, he should walk through with them too?

Ones suspected of that and of transferring stolen classified material - are reasonable searches and seizures. wtf.

[Bonobo]

13. If there was true suspicion...

A search warrant should be issued. Not some kind of sleazy airport maneuver where personal freedom is at its very thinnest.

[Whisp]

17. Is that how the law works, you have to have a warrant to search someone at the airport?

Not like that in the States. I got searched going to Vegas from Canada. Had to take my shoes off, all that bit. Didn't take 9 hours tho.

But I wasn't carrying storage devices with stolen government property.

[Bonobo]

19. My point exactly.

It was weasel behavior to do it at the airport where there is a far thinner expectation of 4th amendment rights.

[Whisp]

20. brazillions have 4th amendments rights in England? wow.

That's impressive!

[Bonobo]

21. Do you suppose that English rights are so different than US rights? Really?

Want to bet?

[Whisp]

23. do they and Brasil have a 4th amendment. That is what you said.

You did not say 'rights'.

[Bonobo]

24. Sore loser. nt

[Whisp]

25. Case rested. n/t

[darkangel218]

79. lol! :)

[KurtNYC]

93. Ding!

[NealK]

37. brazillions?

[SammyWinstonJack]

45. ...

[markpkessinger]

39. Why do you find that so strange?

After all, foreigners traveling on U.S. soil are afforded (or are supposed to be) 4th Amendment protections. Those protections are NOT limited to citizens, you know.

[JI7]

46. but this was not on US Soil

[markpkessinger]

56. I know that ...

... But why is it so inconceivable that the U.K. might extend civil liberties to all who fall under their jurisdiction at a given time, much the way the U.S. does?

[JI7]

60. i don't know UK laws in much detail but i know they can be different , things like freedom of speech

is much more limited in the UK.

[markpkessinger]

61. That is quite possibly the case . . .

. . . But the post I was responding to implied that a Brazilian could not possibly have civil protections in the UK, as if to suggest that all countries only extend civil protections to their own citizens. In fact, MOST Western-style democracies do so.

[blackspade]

85. Is there an authoritarian action that you won't condone?

Just two posts up you are talking about the detention of someone under a British terrorism statute for the possession of "stolen government property" and conflating it with US law and airport security.

Now you are berating another poster for responding to your conflation?

How about answering these questions:
What was the pretext for the stop and interrogation of Miranda?
What was the pretext of the seizure of his possessions?
Was the "stolen government property" British?
Did he even have "stolen government property?"

I never thought I would see the day that members of DemocraticUnderground would be undermining investigative journalism just because they don't like the result.

[ocpagu]

92. The fact that Brazilians do not have 4th amendments rights in England...

... doesn't mean they don't have rights at all. They have their domestic rights and rights under international law - and UK has the international obligation to respect such rights.

That's why UK citizens are not detained without warrant and lawyers in Brazilian airports.

Of course, this may now change, if I'm familiar with Brazil's golden rule for diplomacy: reciprocity.

[uhnope]

113. ooh. killer analogy.nt

[LaydeeBug]

117. but he wasn't in the USA. He was in the UK. nt

[msanthrope]

11. It sounds like Glenn pulled a David House....or a failed Fawn Hall. nt

[morningfog]

41. In your opinion, was it terrorism?

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. His electronic property is no more 'stolen documents' than a copy of The Guardian

Perhaps his drives included copies of classified US documents; since you've read the threads about it on DU, your computer probably has done so at some stage too. The DU servers do, anyway. The Guardian servers will have copies too, but they haven't been confiscated. This will be because possession of the copies is not an offence.

What you seem to be saying is that anyone with close links to Greenwald should avoid all the authoritarian countries - the USA, UK, France, Italy, Spain, Portugal - known to abuse laws and protocol to harass journalists.

[hobbit709]

64. Just because they said they were "stolen" doesn't mean anything.

I can remember being being stopped by the cops for DWLH-Driving While Long-Haired back in the 60's. Their excuse was always "They had a report that a car matching my description was "stolen". Like someone would have stolen my old beat up clunker. Once they couldn't find anything, they always let me go with a warning.

[chimpymustgo]

67. To whom do government documents belong? OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people?

[Little Star]

100. .

[Whisp]

105. so you think, for example, that the plans to get Bin Laden

should have been made public all along? I mean the fine details of the plan, so he would know what's up.

seriously....


I know you don't mean that, but am confused by what exactly you do mean.

[midnight]

104. Who is saying stolen government documents were the reason for the stop?

[avebury]

109. I wonder if there is any chance that he was not

carrying anything but that the stuff was planted on him by the people who stopped him. I see it going either way

[uhnope]

112. exactly. This is so overblown. nt

[mick063]

3. It is a drip by drip process

Like a time released pill.

My opinion:

There is true fear that the submerged portion of the iceberg will be revealed.

If it is, I expect another Teapot Dome. I believe this because of the great diplomatic energy consumed to end this quickly. Because of the great effort to demonize Snowden. Because some politicians are beginning to view this as an issue to campaign on and are jumping on the populist side regardless of party affiliation. Because a flight with diplomatic immunity was grounded and a person associated with Greenwald was detained. Because nations such as Britain and France have publically scolded us.

The Democratic Party is not lockstep with this issue. There is no unified front. Some with future aspirations want to distance themselves quickly.

All this leads me to believe that we have not heard the worst of it.

[LearningCurve]

8. I share your opinion

We have not heard the worst of it.

[sabrina 1]

15. If Ron Wyden is correct, and Udall, what we are witnessing is just the tip of the iceberg.

[NealK]

38. I sure hope that a good part of that iceberg will be exposed.

[nadinbrzezinski]

62. And...it started with the Bush admin

Some might go back even further.

[NoMoreWarNow]

89. there is a lot buried, to be sure, but my question is-- why don't they detain Greenwald?

or why didn't they make a better attempt at getting Snowden?

[defacto7]

110. A purely rhetorical question I pose out of frustration....

Just what the hell is our government afraid of?

What we have already on them is pretty damning but what could be this damaging? worth this kind of effort? How far will they go in the end? Even if the Snowden/wikileaks info were not what they have been cracked up to be, what could make governments freak out like this?

Teapot Dome is right.

[mick063]

121. To answer your question

The speculation could run wild and for now, that is all it will be, speculation, until Greenwald releases another tidbit that gets mulled over by the world audience.

My imagination could run wild on the potential wrong deeds and that is exactly the problem that this administration is facing at the moment. The veil of secrecy will continue to spur imaginative accusations keeping the President in constant defense mode. Every attempt by him to mitigate this looking more desperate, hence, fueling even more speculation. A downward spiral based upon perception more than fact. This is the best case scenario for the President.

The worst case scenario is the imaginative speculation proving to be valid, which I am inclined to believe is true. For example, it has already been revealed that we have secretly listened to European representatives, allies, during economic summits. It has already been speculated that the DEA has used NSA information and created false, parallel intelligence to hide the source.

I think it could be something bigger. Something related to private contractors profiting from government surveillance contracts outside the realm of foreign intelligence gathering. Sharing sensitive information for profit. Or perhaps fleecing us in huge amounts of money for services not actually rendered. Such a scenario would somewhat resemble Teapot Dome.

[Autumn]

6. I don't think we've seen the end of them either. I expect

we will see worse come out.

[LearningCurve]

9. I'd say scared shitless or not afraid of consequences

They may very well be right.

[wildbilln864]

12. sorry but....

most of the press is bought & paid for. IMHO of course.

[CakeGrrl]

16. "They"?

The NSA? CIA? White House? All of the above?

If you're including the White House in this, do you honestly think the trigger-happy Tea Party House of Representatives and GOP-controlled MSM would pass up a chance to trumpet this President's crumbling administration on the verge of impeachment?

You don't think they'd be all OVER it if there was any 'there' there?

[sabrina 1]

27. What do you think is behind the outrageous abuses of power we are witnessing and the crackdown

on Independent journalists? Since you know that the Corporate Media is totally controlled and that during the Bush years we longed for real journalists to emerge to shine a light on his dangerous policies, and they did, Wikileaks was one of the first of the 'new media' that they could not control. Democrats and liberals around the world applauded this new media.

The world, if not the propagandized US, KNOWS about the all out effort to smear the new media and now it is continuing with the persecution, and that is what this is, of more Independent journalists.

Why is America always so out of the loop on these events? Why are some Americans who claim to be liberals finding themselves now on the same side as Cheney, Fleischer, Palin, Peter King? Doesn't that at least give people reason to question how they got there?

[one_voice]

30. I'm curious to know who 'they' are ...

as well.

[kardonb]

55. all

AMEN , cakegrrl !

[treestar]

72. Funny both incidents in the OP took place solely in Europe

"They" is probably something like the corporatists or the Iluminati.

[sabrina 1]

18. They are scared shitless, this is the latest evidence of that and like everything else they've been

doing, lashing out at anyone who dares to tell the truth from Wikileaks to Greenwald to even Democratic leaders of Latin America who dare to exercise their rights as sovereign nations, it will backfire on them.

Aside from how outrageous it is to abuse an already controversial law, it is just plain stupid. In some ways we should be glad to see them so publicly losing it.

They turned Greenwald now into an instant hero around the globe.

When they went after him with Government bids on contracts to smear him, the elevated him from a relatively unknown blogger to an internationally known journalist.

Now he and Assange and Wikileaks, (except to the far right here in this country) have become heroes around the globe.

[NealK]

40. "except to the far right here in this country"

Not just the far right I'm afraid.

Glenn Greenwald being interviewed on Democracy now:

"What you—the only people at this point who are defending the NSA are the hardcore neocons in the Republican Party, people like Lindsey Graham and John McCain and the like, who see national security as the only value that matters, and the really hardcore Obama loyalists and Democrats, who defend anything the Obama administration does and have become the loudest proponents, ironically, of the massive secret surveillance state and of the government’s power to listen in. So those two groups—Republican neocons, Democratic Party loyalists—are at this point the only real defenders the NSA has left."

http://www.democracynow.org/2013/7/18/glenn_greenwald_growing_backlash_against_nsa

[MisterP]

42. they excuse and love conservative policies, so the rule of compensation means that they have to pret

end that the "far left" and "far right" are together, the former enabling the latter, with the reasonable middle defending the Black and gay from extremists

[Mojorabbit]

51. That is my observation on this board. It seems to fit. nt

[snappyturtle]

22. I've never seen anything like this either. It's both scared

shitless and high on power. Lately I've been thinking about all
that has come down on us since 9/11: the Patriot Act, NDAA,
the tax payer bail out of the finance fiasco, TSA, free speech
zones...what is all of this? I'm also wondering when the next
'war' will start? We've gotten a bunch of shitty jobs that don't
pay and Wall Street debt, increased interest on student debt
and a payroll tax. No one needs to chime in here about the
President's accomplishments...I am well aware of them. However,
personally none of those things effect me much and the
quality of my life is diminished. That's how I see it. Selfish?
maybe but there are probably millions like me.

And, no, the press won't say anything.They know who butters
their bread.

[Tiredofthesame]

90. Yes there are millions like you,

It's called the lower/middle class.

[WillyT]

26. K & R !!!

[OnyxCollie]

28. It started when Great Britain threatened to raid the Ecuadorian embassy.

That's when shit got (sur)real.

[Catherina]

29. Both I think. Also much of the press seems to have started waking up with the AP and Rosen incidents

At least it seems that way based on how little sympathy and cooperation they're getting from media like The Washington Post, Salon, The Nation and the New Republic, etc.

[bemildred]

32. Yes, they are talking back now.

Sounding testy too.

[MisterP]

36. "both" is a bad combination--but they have Americans by the short and curlies

either we vote for candidate A or candidate A' (prime notation)
WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANYTHING--maybe not even if the American Idol (that old bugbear) gets canceled
a quarter of the Dems will keep declaring that they have no line to cross, half would protest if a GOPer did half of these things but don't for various vague reasons, and a quarter of Dems isn't enough to stop anything

[Pterodactyl]

33. The press IS awake. They just have different priorities than we do. So they ignore it.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. I am press, and quite frankly, most press is not aware. Whether it is willfull

(a lot of the decisions of what to cover at made at the editorial level), or not is a good question.

I have talked with a lot of my local counterparts, and most just have the same blank stares most people have about the scandal.

[MjolnirTime]

34. No, they just don't care what the Hair on Fire Department throws a fit about.

[Skittles]

44. nothing to see here; move on

[NealK]

43. "I don't think we've seen the end of these abuses."

I totally agree, it will get worse and I'm afraid to imagine how far they'll go.

[cascadiance]

48. This is starting to make Watergate look tame by comparison!

We need some of these bastards going to prison NOW!

[MisterP]

52. Gigagate

[NealK]

53. I couldn't agree more. n/t

[nadinbrzezinski]

58. That is because Watergate was almost two generations ago

And time makes thing seem less bad.

It's in the same category and threatens the Republic in the same manner.

[Rex]

50. Could it be both?

Sacred and high at the same time?

[blkmusclmachine]

54. The POLICE STATE cometh...

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Alex...I will take *both* for 1000

[nolabels]

66. If it makes you feel any better.

I come here to get MY news (things that i think are important). Mostly i only check the corporate for it's sports. Then, if there is time venture out to see if there might have been something missed or interesting of a different note. Realizing that the job of a editorial staff is to tow the party line and also dis-inform if needed to hold the party line is how it works. Which means what i find myself trying to do is figure out what they are not telling me. So it just makes sense to come here first because the latter just makes things confusing and is very time consuming. At DU you can often get a lot of the straight stuff in short hand without all the B.S.

[Zorra]

59. K&R nt

[NoMoreWarNow]

68. Really? What about 9/11, torture, Guantanamo, the Iraq war

the list of crimes goes on and on. Glad you are waking up though.

[blackspade]

86. And what about them?

All of these things need to be actually investigated and prosecutions made.
Bush, Cheney, assorted war criminals, banksters, etc all need to be on the docket.
But they were given a pass because we are looking forward, not backward.....

[malaise]

70. Just give thanks that there exists a UK Guardian

Check that ownership structure - it keeps all the corporations away.

[Harmony Blue]

75. This is the beggining of the end

of this spy apparatus but it requires vigilance and persistence to end this.

[darkangel218]

77. It will not end. Not anytime soon, anyway.

East Europe deja vu.

[LaydeeBug]

82. Booz Allen, who facilitated this whole thing...anybody gonna talk about them? No? whatevs. nt

[bvar22]

102. That is important, and merits discussion, but...

...we just haven't worked our way there yet.
The extent of the Privatization of our "National Intelligence Network"
may be the ultimate Mother Ship of this whole nightmare.

I wonder HOW MUCH of our national Intelligence Network (NSA, CIA, FBI, DoJ, TSA, DEA, Homeland "Security",) has been delivered to "private" hands
over the last 20 years?

100% of our Elections (from the casting of the ballot to the reporting of the results) are already in "private" hands.

The thought is frightening.

[LaydeeBug]

115. Oh we've worked our way there, the distractions are unending...

and the worry about private corporations is spot on.

[6000eliot]

84. Paulbot paranoia.

[another_liberal]

88. Tens of billions in contracts to private surveillance companies are at stake.

Some high-placed people stand to get their knees busted over those kinds of losses should the NSA budget get cut in a big way.

[Warpy]

91. It's a bit of both, actually

The flip side of megalomania is always raging paranoia. Every one of the bureaucrats who is embarrassed by exposure thinks the world came into being with his birth and will wink out of existence with his disgrace and death. They're all out to get him because deep down, he knows he's not up to the job, although that fact might not quite register consciously.

I come from a family of bipolars, so I've seen plenty of this in action. First, they're full of ideas and with boundless enthusiasm, then they get frustrated by the slowness of everyone and everything around them, then they feel they're the only ones capable of doing anything to save us all, followed quickly by the dark forces trying to shut them down.

This is a bit of what's at work with a fascist government starting to run amok.

[Warren DeMontague]

103. Exactly. Thats one reason why dictators are so dangerous.

stalin was paranoid as fuck, which led to him killing a lot of people.

[rhett o rick]

94. I think we are at a major tipping point. TPTB will never relinquish their

power. They will continue to get bolder with their tyranny. Their actions are "in you face, what are you going to do about it?"

[TeamPooka]

95. ...and then they came for me but there was no one left to speak up. nt

[Rebellious Republican]

96. Both. N/T

[avaistheone1]

98. Both. I think they are scared shitless that we are going to learn that they have not been doing

their due diligence supervising the NSA, and yes they are drunk on their own power.

[jimlup]

107. The press is incapable of waking up

but the people themselves are not. Here's to that!

[uhnope]

111. unreal that someone trafficking in stolen stuff would be detained at the airport?

hyperbole OD.

[Th1onein]

114. You forgot about them destroying the computers at The Guardian.

They ARE scared shitless.

[defacto7]

123. Definitely scared shitless.

But destroying those hard drives was stupid as hell. Meaningless and useless... unless it was simply intimidation.

[Dash87]

120. It's pure arrogance and hubris.