General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe game is over. Even Andrew Sullivan has jumped ship of the NSA and GCHQ. In Greenwald's defense
The game is over. Even Andrew Sullivan has jumped ship of the NSA and GCHQ. In Greenwald's defense, he writes:
"A disclosure upfront: I have met David Miranda as part of a my friendship with Glenn Greenwald. The thought of his being detained by the British police for nine hours because his partner embarrassed the American government really sickens me at a gut level. I immediately think of my husband, Aaron, being detained in connection to work I have done something that would horrify and frighten me. We should, of course, feel this empathy with people we have never known but the realization is all the more gob-smacking when it comes so close to home. So of course my instinct is to see this exactly as Glenn has today...
I have seen nothing anywhere that could even connect his spouse to such nefarious contacts. Unless Glenn is some kind of super-al-Qaeda mole, he has none to my knowledge and to suspect him of any is so close to unreasonable it qualifies as absurd. The idea that David may fomenting terrorism is even more ludicrous.
In this respect, I can say this to David Cameron. Thank you for clearing the air on these matters of surveillance. You have now demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that these anti-terror provisions are capable of rank abuse. Unless some other facts emerge, there is really no difference in kind between you and Vladimir Putin. You have used police powers granted for anti-terrorism and deployed them to target and intimidate journalists deemed enemies of the state.
You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed. You have broken the trust that enables any such legislation to survive in a democracy. By so doing, you have attacked British democracy itself. What on earth do you have to say for yourself? And were you, in any way, encouraged by the US administration to do such a thing?
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/08/18/cameron-proves-greenwald-right/
LearningCurve
(488 posts)But it just went into extra innings. That's a start.
Rex
(65,616 posts)In 3...2...1...
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)one_voice
(20,043 posts)until today.
Rex
(65,616 posts)I think hes been under there three or four times by now.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)chimpymustgo
(12,774 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)order to agree with them??
NOW DO YOU GET IT??? People don't care who the 'messenger' is, people care WHAT THE MESSAGE IS. They don't care of it's a Paulite, or even Paul himself. Get it?? It is the FACTS they care about.
Now do you see why all those attempts to connect someone who agrees with Paul on an issue, to Paul himself HAVE FAILED.
Did you really believe that we have to love people in order to agree with them?
What a truly sad comment.
I can't stand Andrew Sullivan, but when he's right, he's right. And this time he is right. That will help his followers to get it also..
Surely you do not support what happened to Miranda? You haven't said, DO you support what happened to him?
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)line between the good guys and bad. It's much more work to discuss issues. But authoritarians get tripped up easily. For example, a typical authoritarian here might say they support all Democrats and strongly dislike all Republicans. Yet if you were to ask them if they support Democrat Sen Wyden over Republican Gen Clapper, they are stumped.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that is one way to make it easy for them. Ask them simple questions like that. It would be interesting to see the responses.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)values. Very difficult when your values revolve around an authoritarian leader.
When Snowden/Greenwald pulled the curtain back to reveal potential constitutional violations, the non-anti-authoritarians (they dont like the label of authoritarian) attacked Snowden/Greenwald and anyone that called for more oversight.
Funny how they've changed their tunes since Obama switched from "no one is spying on Americans" to "we need to have an investigation."
Of course now they are ok with investigations, they think it's ok that Gen Clapper investigate himself.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)country. The tactics being used to try to demonize the messengers, Wikileaks, Manning, Snowden, Greenwald, are so old now that they are easily recognizable, especially to young people who are not dependent on the Corporate Media for their news.
It is this fact, that those who control the media cannot control the Independent media that has sprung up around the world, that has them so desperate to DEMONIZE it.
Diane Feinstein's Orwellian attempt to categorize 'real journalists' as ONLY those who work for the Corporate State, is a blatant attempt to try another way to be able to say 'they are not journalists'.
I sincerely hope that Congress will throw that piece of garbage out before it gets anywhere near being approved of.
Civilization2
(649 posts)Wrong these spying agencies are,.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)not even offer the understanding that a spouse is a spouse. I recall the utter fury and 'hair on fire' out of folks who were very insistant that spouses are off limits when some gay activist dared to intterupt a fundraising speech by the First Lady. Spoues are off limits, but only Straight Spouses are really spouses, that is the underlaying squalor of this Double Standard.
Sully is a conservative and was an insulting Iraq War cheerleader. But he's also a gay man and not a Double Standard Straight. 'It is wrong to raise an eyebrow at the spouses of straight politicians, but it is ok to harrass spouses of gay public figures'. Barf.
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)Its about being appalled that out government is spying on its citizens so it can phony up investigations into medical marijuana dispensaries.
truedelphi
(32,324 posts)Prison industry is one the few major American industries that is growing by leaps and bounds, and you wanna see it curtailed??
And I suppose it's fine with you that the whacky tobacc-ey is helping the cancer crowd go into remission and out and out be cured -- even though that means the Big Pharmaceuticals and their profit margins will suffer.
Next you will be telling us that hemp can't get anyone high, and ought to be used for fabrics, and its oil, and nutritional products!
Warren DeMontague
(80,708 posts)I'm craaaaaaa-zy!
Swagman
(1,934 posts)that I can see you are in the minority and that Americans who really do love freedom no matter where they stand politically are in the majority.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)he will be allowed to leave from under the bus. I've decided that if some are foaming at the mouth, then others are gushing.
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)What, is Cameron just taking over for Blair?
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)Glenn will figure this out eventually.
Response to MjolnirTime (Reply #4)
Post removed
one_voice
(20,043 posts)I figured it out.
MjolnirTime
(1,800 posts)It must really bother you that I'm on the winning side.
Your snark will be forgotten.
But the President I support is making real decisions right now.
Cooley Hurd
(26,877 posts)Look at the top of the greatest page. And the 2nd from the top. Do this daily. Then tell me how you're on the winning side.
Remember Baghdad Bob? He kept claiming the Iraq Army was "winning" too.
morningfog
(18,115 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)him. But I'm sure now they will.
Game Over. LOL!
BeyondGeography
(39,284 posts)if only for an evening.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)There are a ton of pundits and politicians out there who have both good and bad qualities. His piece was personal and one could tell this incident really shook him up. As a person with empathy I could feel his disquiet.
kpete
(71,901 posts)"his disquiet" was why I posted this piece...
peace, kp
ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)phrase "foaming at the mouth" twice in one thread - even if you are the only one foaming at the mouth.
frylock
(34,825 posts)ohheckyeah
(9,314 posts)it up a bit in the same thread though.
quakerboy
(13,901 posts)You know, like where we can maybe agree with a person on one issue, but not on others, or have gradations of agreement with different nuanced positions. Maybe some of us can even have differences in how much credibility we give different sources of information, based on their track records and correlation with other facts in evidence.
Vinnie From Indy
(10,820 posts)Cheers!
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)quakerboy
(13,901 posts)that there are a group of people on DU who do indeed prefer to do exactly that.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)The idea that he could hajve no connection whatsoever to the stolen documents is naive. Especially when he had just come from a meeting with one of the people working on releasing those documents. If he has no connection to it why was he meeting them in the first place?
Sorry the porr little innocent thing might work if he hadnt been meeting with others working on the release of the documents and was just on vacation but that by Greenwalds own admission is not the case.
While in Berlin, Miranda had visited Laura Poitras, the US film-maker who has also been working on the Snowden files with Greenwald and the Guardian. The Guardian paid for Miranda's flights
sweetloukillbot
(10,814 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)Of course he is just a charming little fellow that has nothing at all to do with this stuff...
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)If like me, you believe that the NSA surveillance violates our Constitution and is causing serious problems or will cause serious problems in our foreign policy, then you like the publishing of the documents as I do.
Prohibiting the press from publishing these documents based on their political or social content is, in my opinion, a violation of the First Amendment. It's hard to argue otherwise.
A document that the president has labeled "secret" remains "secret" as long as the people who possess it or are giving access or responsibility for it believe that it deserves to kept "secret." That is really all that our secrecy laws mean.
The minute that the government that declares information "secret" but fails to convince those to whom it entrusts the information that the secrecy is justified, the information will be published. Sooner or later someone will publish it or talk about it.
The underlying problem is not that "secret" documents are being published but that our "security state" has lost the trust and confidence of some of those it employs to keep the documents secret. That is why a person like Snowden decided to publish the documents.
This is not an isolated case. We have had a number of whistleblowers coming forward to tell, to "betray" the secrets about this and similar programs in recent years.
The leaking of documents, the whistleblowing are not the problem. They are merely symptoms of a much deeper, darker problem. That problem is the lack of trust and confidence of so many Americans in their government.
On the right, that lack of trust fueled many of the Tea-Baggers; on the left it was the motivation for Occupy Wall Street.
The distrust is growing as we discuss this issue on DU.
A growing number of people believe that exposing the surveillance is more valuable to our country than maintaining the "secrets" that hide the surveillance from the American people and the world.
Snowden is not an anomaly. Snowden is one of a growing number of people who see our government acting in ways that are objectionable and trying to hide the objectionable conduct behind a stamp that says "secret."
That is why we will see change in the surveillance program over time.
Greenwald is just a journalist who is reporting on this change. Why people are blaming him for the change is beyond me.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It is possible to see both as bad.
HumansAndResources
(229 posts)Read her story in the NYT - stopped, intimidated, told she could not take notes on her interrigations - her laptops, cells, and even handwritten-notebooks taken by Our "Department of Hammer and Sickle" (DHS) - over 40 times. You know, all that stuff we older folks were told in "school" that the "Evil Commie Russians" did - like "See Something, Say Something" snitch programs.
In 10,000 years with all the computers on Earth working a brute-force attack, maybe GCHQ can read any docs he had,. But then - you can put them in the cloud encrypted, where someone else can pick them up, and the clear-text is no more "accessible" when the NSA logs into a "secret-court-approved" back-door (worse than Orwell) and snatches them, so why bother with hand-carrying at all?
I think Greenwald is right - pure intimidation and nothing more. GCHQ and American "Intelligence" (read "War Criminals" have been attached at the hip since WWII.
sweetloukillbot
(10,814 posts)Oh, these are encrypted, can't get anything from them. Go on your merry way sir, sorry to have troubled you?
Jesus Christ.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)If the UK is happy to detain people for 9 hours and confiscate their property to disrupt the communication between the 2, I expect they also try to interfere with internet communication between them, by hacking, or bribing/threatening ISPs and telecoms companies to disrupt it. I don't know how practical it would be - they could split up files and use drop-off points all over the net - but maybe, for large amounts of data like video (Ms. Poitras is a film-maker, after all), a couriered exchange seemed worth a try.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)no one's business. Then the Brits seize his electronic gear! It's
all intimidation bullshit.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)in your strange world there is no such thing as information that should be kept secret. We have information on the location of the leader of the worlds largest child porn ring...Fuck it lets tell everyone before we capture him! Sounds like good reasoning there.
Excuse me while I totally disregard your opinions on this matter.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)are you trying to spin that into?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Snowden stole thousands of classified documents.....
Greenwald is releasing those documents......
His boyfriend was visiting One of snowdens partners that is helping to release those documents...
Do you dispute any of that?
And if not how in the world can you convince yourself there is no possibility his partner was moving documents from one location to another?
And if you are at least honest enough to admit that's possible. Where in the world would you get the idea that the UK government wouldn't take the opportunity to intercept that? Or that somehow they shouldnt?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Those documents are far, far
away and secure. As far as the Brits go....we know who their
puppetmaster is. All they are doing is intimidating Greenwald and
making themselves look like fools.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Thanks for clearing that up....
I would say the fact that he brought laptops with him and expected another result pretty much proves he is an idiot..opinions vary though.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)carrying his laptops with him. I also think Greenwald has better
ways to transport data than on his lover's laptop.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)searched.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)would be with a warrant, right?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and if desired by airport/transportation/customs authorities, detained.
Every country asserts the right to exert customs and border control in this way.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)post with which you are agreeing that casts Miranda as Greenwald's 'boyfriend'. Is Michelle Barack's 'girlfriend'?
This is why a jerk like Sully is handy to have around, he's a conservative, like the rest of the Pro NSA Unhinged crowd but he's also a gay man so he does not carry the clear antipathy toward Miranda that the rest of you harbor. His 'boyfriend'. Two grown spouses. Boys. Of course you would not welcome any of that language toward yourself nor toward your own. When it is hurled at us, you agree with it.
You folks who allow your cohort to call grown men 'boy' and treat out spouses as if our relationships were not equal to you own ARE the problem.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Russia repeals its anti-gay law. http://www.democraticunderground.com/113730126
#2 - I apologized for saying bf and thanked the person for correcting me on that http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3487156
There isn't much left in your post after that.
I await your apology for hurling incorrect accusations at me.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)Rex
(65,616 posts)Not like he was a flight risk. Watching people agree with the UKs abuse of power is sad.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1. Snowden stole thousands of classified documents. He is under indictment for espionage.
2. Greenwald is releasing those documents.
3. Greenwald's bf was visiting one of Snowdens partners (the partner of someone under indictment for espionage) that is helping to release those documents and has access to them.
4. The UK is a US ally
5. Greenwald's bf was attempting to enter the UK after meeting with someone who is assisting with the distribution of materials obtained via the espionage for which Snowden is under indictment.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'd be shocked if he wasn't detained.
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)The legal definition of theft involves, in England, intent to permanently deprive. Copying is not stealing (there's copyright aspects to a lot of copying, of course, but that is not being invoked here). Greenwald has copies of American data (and so does The Guardian, in London, and it hasn't had its computers taken away, or anyone charged; for that matter, the Washington Post hasn't had its computers confiscated, or anyone charged, and that's in the USA, where it was government data). This dates from 1997, but I don't think new legislation has been introduced:
particular, trade secrets cannot, in law, be stolen: they do not constitute property
for the purpose of the Theft Act 1968,11 section 1 of which defines the offence of
theft as the dishonest appropriation of property belonging to another with the
intention of permanently depriving the other of it. In the leading case, Oxford v
Moss,12 an undergraduate obtained the proof of an examination paper before the
examination. After reading the proof he returned it, retaining the information for
his own use. He was held not guilty of stealing the information.
The principle is strikingly illustrated by Absolom,13 which followed Oxford v Moss.
The defendant, a geologist, obtained and then tried to sell to a rival company
details of a leading oil companys exploration for oil off the Irish coast. The
information, which was contained in a graphalog (a record of geological data
and an indication of the prospects of finding oil), was unique, since the company
was the only oil company exploring the area. The company had invested £13
million in drilling operations, and the information could have been sold for
between £50,000 and £100,000. Although the judge stated that the defendant had
acted in utmost bad faith, he directed the jury to acquit him of theft, on the
ground that the information in the graphalog was not capable of founding such a
charge.
A further difficulty with applying the law of theft to the misappropriation of a trade
secret arises from the requirement that the defendant must intend permanently to
deprive the owner of the property. It is difficult to see how there is any question
of deprivation where someone has, in breach of confidence, forced the original
holder to share, but not forget, his secret.
http://lawcommission.justice.gov.uk/docs/cp150_Legislating_the_Criminal_Code__Misuse_of_Trade_Secrets_Consultation.pdf
There are laws about the misuse of computers, which cover people hacking, but those would apply to Snowden, not to everyone he then copied the data to.
Miranda was not detained under suspicion of theft, or the Official Secrets Act, or anything like that; he was detained under the Terrorism Act, which was written (before 9/11) to allow anyone to be detained at an airport or border, for up to 9 hours, even if they're not suspected of having anything to do with terrorism. This is an abuse of the act, though it seems to follow the letter of the law. It is the mark of an authoritarian government to do this.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)has jumped the shark.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)boyfriend or worse 'bf'. Boy. Because gay men are boys. Because life partners are just friends.
Sometimes that's all it takes to see who's who and what's on their minds. This is particularly useful when reading those who claim a professional level of communications, the words of such people are clearly chosen with great precision to express specific ideas. Boys who are friends as opposed to life partnered adults.
Folks who talk like that....they send an age old message of inequity.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)aplogize. In addition you are pontificating about UK law you do not understand and when others correct you you refuse to acknowledge the facts.
Calling a man's spouse or domestic partners his 'bf' is insulting. You knew that. This is why you did it.
You should consider posting an apology to every one of us who has a domestic partner or same sex spouse for using degrading terminology about our community.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'm waiting to see if you have the integrity to apologize.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3488312
Skittles
(152,966 posts)WTF
WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE
MannyGoldstein
(34,589 posts)that cannot be limited without being lost."
- Thomas Jefferson
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)I know.. you "call it" like you "see it".
Egnever
(21,506 posts)"When asked if Greenwald believed his computer was being monitored by the U.S. government. I would be shocked if the U.S. government were not trying to access the information on my computer. I carry my computers and data with me everywhere I go.
I would say your presumptions are fairly silly.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)the gov't can monitor him too but it's silly for you to assume
that Greenwald would endanger his lover. Greenwald would
have better safeguards than that.
Egnever
(21,506 posts)If he is a co conspirator he should be immune to detainment and seizure of his electronics because he is greenwalds lover?
We seem to be going in circles here and I am logging off for the night.
Have a good evening.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Egnever
(21,506 posts)By his own admission he did exactly what you thought he would be too smart to do.
Sorry I came across that before I logged off and thought you might be interested.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)just asking............
You can bet Greenwald has copies of those thumb drives. I am
a bit surprised he sent those with Miranda. I also had another
thought I posted 'somewhere' but it was I think the Guardian
paid for the trip to keep Miranda in 'journalist' status...maybe
somewhat of a protection?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)I haven't seen any indication the documents are in any way related to classified German intelligence. Britain on the other hand...
Maybe you know something about that I dont?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)at you.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)Really, isn't the content all conjecture other than what Snowden
has revealed? I really don't know.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)airport, those curious about the contents had the ability and right to do just that.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)whether they had the right seems to be questioned this morning
by members of the British gov't.
The governments (U.S. & U.K.) may come to rue the day they
rattled the cage of the 'secrets' keeper (Greenwald) who has up
to now been fairly innocuous in exposing what he has in his
possession. We'll see how the bullies are perceived by their
citizens.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)and detain people in transit at will in the secure areas of international airports. Some folks in elected office might make a fuss for show but nothing will come of it.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)that allows the detention of travellers for 9 hours without suspicion of any law-breaking, and without a lawyer, and during which it's an offence to not co-operate. This shows the Germany is a freer country than the UK. It also shows the current UK regime is authoritarian, as are the people here defending the detention.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)when they are covering a story?? I'm curios to understand those who appear to be defending the detention of a journalist's partner, family member to access information, or to intimate the journalist. I find this to be one of the most frightening abuses of the so-called 'terror war' and wonder why everyone doesn't. Regardless of anyone's opinion on the issues involved, this is way, way outside those issues.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)because abuses of power and violating people's right for no reason are always fucking hysterical. But our team was the one embarrassed, so we have to defend our house, right? Just when I think it can't get any worse, shit like this happens and I see that the average citizen is dog shit to TPTB.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The manufactured outrage over this is hilarious.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)I hung out with known Al Qaeda affiliated Iraqi Sunni's that flipped to our side during the Iraq surge when I was a soldier, even had dinner and smoked a hookah with them after they flipped. I guess I should be expecting a Drone Strike soon....do you even hear yourself?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Do you even hear YOURself?
If you are going to make an analogy, have it fit. Yours doesnt fit.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)mine fits perfectly, I was cavorting and sharing intel with terrorists......the only difference is they were our terrorists now. But hey man, whatever you do to sleep at night while you help flush liberty down the drain. Apologists for this disgusting behavior are inexplicable. It's like McCarthyism except our side is doing it, so it's cool bro......
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)ljm2002
(10,751 posts)Miranda did not "choose to hang out with" Greenwald; he's married to him. They were married before Snowden gave any of this material to Greenwald.
Furthermore, calling Greenwald and Poitras "co-conspirators" is outrageous. They are investigative journalists who were given information and chose to publish it. There is no evidence, zero, nada, zip, that either of them "conspired" with Snowden to obtain this information.
You apparently would like to see investigative journalism criminalized. That's really a shame. I am reminded of Greenwald's response to David Gregory in that infamous interview, where Gregory asked him why he should not be arrested. You are in media yourself, as a pundit / journalist, and yet you are willing to accuse another journalist of being a co-conspirator when you have no evidence, just your wishful supposition. He is doing the same thing that investigative journalists have done historically; and that is also protected under our Constitution.
Way to go. Guess I won't be tuning in to your show.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)1. Snowden stole thousands of classified documents. He is under indictment for espionage.
2. Greenwald is releasing those documents.
3. Greenwald's bf was visiting one of Snowdens partners (the partner of someone under indictment for espionage) that is helping to release those documents and has access to them.
4. The UK is a US ally
5. Greenwald's bf was attempting to enter the UK after meeting with someone who is assisting with the distribution of materials obtained via the espionage for which Snowden is under indictment.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I'd be shocked if he wasn't detained.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)1. Snowden stole thousands of classified documents. He is under indictment for espionage.
Yes.
2. Greenwald is releasing those documents.
Yes, functioning as a JOURNALIST, Greenwald is releasing PARTS of SOME of those documents.
3. Greenwald's bf was visiting one of Snowdens partners (the partner of someone under indictment for espionage) that is helping to release those documents and has access to them.
Greenwald's SPOUSE was visiting another JOURNALIST who is helping to release the documents.
4. The UK is a US ally
Indeed.
5. Greenwald's bf was attempting to enter the UK after meeting with someone who is assisting with the distribution of materials obtained via the espionage for which Snowden is under indictment.
Greenwald's SPOUSE was transferring to another flight in the UK after meeting with the other JOURNALIST who is assisting in publishing these materials.
I get that both the UK and US governments are pissed and I'm not surprised either that he was detained. However, you claimed that Greenwald and Poitras are "co-conspirators" with Snowden which is -- being charitable here -- not backed up by any factual information.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Thank you for correcting me on bf vs spouse. I will not make that error again.
In the UK, you are subject to airport security searches when you change aircraft. I found that out the hard way once when I missed a connecting flight in Heathrow due to having to go through security again. Once you are under the control of a particular country's airport airside, you are subject to any searches and detention they want to make unless you for some reason have diplomatic immunity. Being a journalist or friend or spouse of a journalist does not confer that immunity.
Snowden, for instance, found that he could not leave the airport airside at Sheremetyevo airport until Russia gave him leave to enter. He had no right to refuse being searched while there. He was utterly subject to Russia's customs, immigration and border control policies.
If you are thought to be trafficking in stolen goods or espionage, you will be detained and searched and if contraband is found you will be subject to arrest.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...while I do not know the law w.r.t. journalism in the UK, it is incorrect to cast Greenwald and Poitras as "co-conspirators". They are journalists.
Some people like to allege that Greenwald and Snowden conspired to obtain the documents that Snowden got; this seems based on the date when Snowden first contacted Greenwald. It's pretty thin gruel, though, since (a) Snowden contacted Greenwald rather than the other way around, and (b) Greenwald proceeded to ignore him for weeks, because the encryption was too complicated for him to deal with. That's when Snowden decided to contact Poitras, who got on it and hooked Greenwald up with encryption, paving the way for further communication between Snowden and Greenwald.
There is zero evidence of conspiracy between Snowden, Greenwald and Poitras as far as obtaining the information in the first place, and people who make the claim are simply speculating. Which is why I objected to your framing in the first place.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Otherwise, you are subject to being searched when traveling and entering and exiting secure international transit areas of airports.
ljm2002
(10,751 posts)...and all the people involved are either journalists (Greenwald, Poitras) or are married to a journalist (Miranda), then I must assume you are okay with the intimidation tactics employed against journalists. Which has been clear from your first post on this matter.
Got it.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)That's some hilarious stuff there.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)You did so with intention, one assumes a professional jounalist of your caliber does not accidentally use insulting language toward a minority group.
How many times did you call him Greenwalds's 'bf'? How many times did you call adult domestic partners boys who are friends?
You have shown another card, further defined yourself with the words you used by choice.
Have you ever called some man's wife his 'girlfriend' repeatedly? 'In error' in the midst of a discussion about that couple? Of course not.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)A poster said to you:
"Miranda did not "choose to hang out with" Greenwald; he's married to him. They were married before Snowden gave any of this material to Greenwald."
Your response to that included:
"Greenwald's bf was attempting to enter the UK after meeting with someone who is assisting with the distribution of materials obtained via the espionage for which Snowden is under indictment."
---------------------------------------------------
And what does 'I had no idea' mean? No idea it was insulting to call a man's spouse his friend? To call adults 'boys'? Seriously? Or do you mean that you had no idea these two men have been partners for years and years?
If you don't know the facts of their relationship, you don't know enough to preach and characterize at all. 'I had no idea, but I blathered on in insulting terms anyway'.
The thread exists for others to read. I suppose you could edit your 'bfs' repeated in face of clearly spoken corrections of that dismissive terminology. But it's all here to read Steve.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)I also asked for clarification as to what you meant by 'I had no idea' and of course you dismissed what I actually said in order to claim you did not say 'bf' after being corrected about the insulting nature of your verbiage.
'I had no idea' you said. No idea about what, Steve? Can you clarify your own excuses?
No idea they are together? No idea that spouses don't like their relationship degraded to 'bf' status?
You called gay married adults 'boyfriends' many, many times and refused to correct it when it was pointed out to you. Maybe you simply did not read the posts correcting you and wrote your repsonses anyway? Because you were clearly told that 'bf' was insulting and you repeated it.
'I had no idea'. About what?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Welcome to my ignore list.
Well said.
frylock
(34,825 posts)to rationalize the murder of innocent children by drones. not at all surprised to see it run up the flagpole in this instance.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Greenwald is not a 'co-conspirator', and neither is Poitras. They are not charged with anything.
Leser, did you ever consider yourself a journalist? Or do you just play one on TV?
TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)and therefore to be a 'pundit' on what the Democratic party line is.
...
Leser is also a political organizer and has held positions within the Democratic Party including District Chair and Public Relations Chair within county organizations.
http://www.opednews.com/author/author75.html
He's your go-to guy for what the Democratic party wants people to hear. He may never have practised journalism, though he's had to feed them information.
tazkcmo
(7,286 posts)Never heard of him. Of course I don't watch Faux. Ever. Not even clips of crap that was on Faux. What's the matter? He can't find a real job with real journalists? Ignore lists. Add me too.
Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)Have you lost your marbles? What do you expect Greenwald's spouse to do?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)shuttle back and forth between that person and Greenwald?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)violations? According to some on this thread if you have the
'potential' you can be subject to illegal searches and seizures.
TPTB have no evidence on Miranda so they're trying, desperately,
to find 'something' because they assume it must be there I guess.
This is not right.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)It is interesting that Brazil didn't have those same intentions
toward Miranda when he left Brazil.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Everybody does. Have you been on a plane or train recently?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)This person happens to be connected to someone disseminating stolen US documents. This isnt Joe Blow going on vacation.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)and not with any "stolen US documents." They don't have to transport documents on laptops or through other means. They can just transmit the stuff over the internet.
Remember. Theoretically, the US government already has copies of the documents. It doesn't need to stop a traveler and grab them. The government stopped Miranda to harass and embarrass, not to obtain stolen documents. The government may have done it to steal documents, but they would not need to obtain copies of "stolen documents" that were copied from their files.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)things.
lumpy
(13,704 posts)posters who have some cockeyed idea that it is OK to commit criminal acts of trying to undermine the government of this country.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)surveillance.
The journalist who reported on the surveillance program is doing his job.
Unfortunately a lot of "journalists" do not understand that they are supposed to tell the people about the excesses and wrongs of the politicians and of the government as well as about the successes and good deeds of the politicians and government.
Sad when journalists do not have the knowledge, experience or judgment to recognize criminal behavior on the part of the government on which they claim to be reporting. Sad indeed.
Such journalists should find another profession -- maybe public relations would suit them better.
It takes a very sharp, critical mind and a lot of knowledge and understanding to be a good journalist. Sometimes people who like getting front and center and seek a lot of attention really don't have what it takes. It's best for them to recognize that and get out of the game early before they end up being news hacks rather than journalists.
Of course, people can learn.
No one should report on this issue unless they have taken a course in constitutional law. Because this surveillance violates our rights in a number of ways. It may take years to persuade the Supreme Court of that fact, but it is still a fact.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Espionage involves the trafficking of information. The person who was detained met with someone who was given access to that information.
It's totally reasonable for law enforcement to suspect that the person who was ultimately detained now has that information. And when that person transited an area where law enforcement has the absolute right to search and detain you they (law enforcement) acted to find out if that suspicion was correct.
You and the rest of the folks complaining about this have no leg to stand on. There is nothing remotely reasonable about the objections you are raising.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)might be a clue, boyfriend.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Why is what Edward Snowden did always described as a, "Theft of NSA property?" Wouldn't it be much more accurate to call what he did an effort to protect evidence of the crimes committed by the spy masters against thousands, if not millions, of his fellow American citizens?
When one has evidence of a crime committed by those in authority, isn't it legally justifiable to secret that evidence away, so it can be delivered it to those who can prosecute such high level wrong-doing? Looking at it this way, wouldn't the harassment of Glenn Greenwald, his spouse and The Guardian newspaper all be acts of complicity in the NSA's crimes?
reusrename
(1,716 posts)WTF?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Thats just the bullshit Greenwald is feeding you.
The law has no requirements for there to be any suspicion of terrorism to detain anyone nor that terrorism is involved at all.
It is a bullshit law to be sure and apparently there has been a lot of push back on it in GB but His detention had nothing to do with terrorism and everything to do with his connection to stolen classified documents.
NealK
(1,791 posts)No, in fact it have everything to do with intimidation.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Scotland Yard refused to be drawn on why Miranda was stopped using powers that enable police officers to stop and question travellers at UK ports and airports.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow
They do not claim it has anything to do with "stolen classified documents"; perhaps because, under English law, copies of documents are not 'stolen'. The documents were also classified by the USA, not the UK, copied by an American, and handed over to Americans, in Hong Kong.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)if you embarrass certain people that are supposed paragons of Constitutional knowledge. But whatever, it is just freedom and liberty we are talking about, nothing important.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)The nerve of those Brits, actually wanting to detain someone who has been meeting with someone who has access to reams of stolen intelligence information from a British ally.
It's all intimidation, that's what it is.
It all makes sense now. The examination of his electronic devices, etc. If you are going to involve yourself in a crime, be prepared to be treated like a criminal.
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)involved in? Or is it just kinda like a made up crime to fit the
puppet's intentions?
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)is a potential co conspirator. http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/21/us-usa-security-snowden-charges-idUSBRE95K18220130621
Rumold
(69 posts)Or someone who has met with him , or someone who has met with someone who has met with him.
Don't forget the people who have called people who have called people who called him.
I believe that is the definition of probable cause.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)Not flaming, just curious.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)n/t
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Manning.
AnalystInParadise
(1,832 posts)you have no wish to contradict yourself.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)That would make nearly every crime reporter and every criminal lawyer a potential co-conspirator.
The definition of a conspiracy and a co-conspirator is much more demanding than that.
Oh, dear. Oh, dear.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)who come in contact with you.
Luminous Animal
(27,310 posts)frylock
(34,825 posts)perhaps we're close to reaching an epiphany, eh steven leser?
Egnever
(21,506 posts)Always running around intimidating people for sport.
Just ask the Scots!
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)The purpose of the law is the detain suspected Terrorists until they can be more positively eliminated. Let's for the sake of argument say that Miranda was in fact transporting the documents that Snowden procured to blow the whistle with. What the hell, since we're going hypothetical, let's go all the way and say he stole those documents. Is the transportation of those documents by an accredited journalist terrorism by any stretch of the imagination?
The obvious, and only answer is no that it is not terrorism. So why bother? Intimidation is the most probable answer. Scare the journalists back into line. Scare the rest of us into line.
Nuts to the excuses to the contrary, because in the end, the event was an abuse of an anti-terrorism statute, and an attempt to intimidate the press into compliance with the authorities.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)...the argument can be made that disclosing items of classified methodology that the NSA is using to combat terrorism is aid to the terrorists. If you are aiding terrorists, are you not aiding in their commission of terrorism?
Is that line of reasoning a little weak? Sure. No question.
I think it's fair to detain the guy for meeting with the folks who are assisting someone indicted in espionage with distributing the fruits of that espionage.
Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)I'm not surprised.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Savannahmann
(3,891 posts)It's that you eschew good reasoned arguments that I am not surprised.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)I'd say the faulty arguments are all on your side.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,154 posts)Have you no self-respect at all?
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)When I first heard of this abuse I couldn't help but wonder if
the U.S. wasn't involved. I see Sullivan is wondering the same.
Shameful.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)WorseBeforeBetter
(11,441 posts)He'll be good again, by God!
MNBrewer
(8,462 posts)once it's been crystal clear that he's been wrong all along for a while...
Obama is toast on this issue if even a stopped-clock-Pundit like Sullivan has turned against him.
aquart
(69,014 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)quinnox
(20,600 posts)Sullivan was such an Obama fan, he would have been right at home in the DU BOG group for a long time.
So I am shocked to see Sullivan write this: Since then, Ive watched the debate closely and almost all the checks I supported have been proven illusory. The spying is vastly more extensive than anyone fully comprehended before; the FISA court has been revealed as toothless and crippled; and many civilians have had their privacy accidentally violated over 3000 times. The president, in defending the indefensible, has damaged himself and his core reputation for honesty and candor. These cumulative revelations have exposed this program as, at a minimum, dangerous to core liberties and vulnerable to rank abuse. Ive found myself moving further and further to Glenns position.
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)PowerToThePeople
(9,610 posts)JoePhilly
(27,787 posts)struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)He voted for Bush in 2000 -- and despite his supposed anti-interventionist stance, he originally supported the Iraq war
It's nice he finally changed his mind about Bush and Iraq. And I guess it's nice if he "supported" Obama in 2008, though his actual http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/11/barack-obama-fo.html" target="_blank">"endorsement" for Obama was meaninglessly posted on the web in the afternoon of the day before the election. But overall, he's an idiot
struggle4progress
(118,041 posts)government"
I don't know whether his detention is connected to the NSA stories, though it might be a plausible guess. But the Guardian paid for Miranda's international trip to meet with Poitras -- so IF there IS a connection, it's not simply that Miranda has a relationship with Greenwald, but the fact that Miranda seems to be traveling between Greenwald and Poitras on the Guardian's tab. Poitras says she gets detained frequently, though I don't know why
snappyturtle
(14,656 posts)may protect Miranda as being party to journalistic efforts. I would
bet Poitras is detained to intimidate her....let her know they are
watching. imho
Rex
(65,616 posts)Honestly I think the game is far from over.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)He admits to being Glennie's friend. Why is this person's opinion of conclusory importance? Oh, it's not.
He makes a lot of leaps of faith into his conclusions.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)Snowden, it would be "Ohmigosh, even Pat Buchanan is in favor of GG... game over!"
Of course, we shouldnt be that surprised about warped logic being used in favor of these folks.
Little Star
(17,055 posts)cantbeserious
(13,039 posts)eom
Pretzel_Warrior
(8,361 posts)and Andrew Sullivan was against antiwar protesters after 9/11 in the run up to Iraq war.
http://thedailybanter.com/2013/01/andrew-sullivans-political-transformation-bravery-or-spineless-populism/
Andrew Sullivan is a lot like Glenn Greenwald in his curious turnabouts politically.
Progressive dog
(6,862 posts)just for Germany, Russia, and China. I'll bet there are other countries with spy agencies.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)On the Road
(20,783 posts)I guess the president should just give up.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)They're a wanking, buggering lot of punters, those NSA yanks. I say!
uhnope
(6,419 posts)Why can't someone trafficking in stolen stuff get detained at an airport? It's ridiculous.
arcane1
(38,613 posts)"You have proven that these laws can be hideously abused. Which means they must be repealed."
zentrum
(9,865 posts)as far as these National Security State Corporation Types are concerned.
From their perspective, the game has just begun.