If Iran or North Korea had done what the UK did

[boston bean]

to the wife/partner/husband of an American journalist, you can bet you sweet patootie, there would be no defense of it.

There would be condemnation. Set your moral compass starting there, ok.

[Scootaloo]

1. Yeah, but Bush called those nations evil!

So you know it's evil when they do it! I swear Boston Bean, you really need to read the user's guide to this stuff. DU ranks the evil of nations on a scale indexed by melanin, religion, and efranchisement (no, the other kind)

Basically the whiter you are, the more christian (or best case, secular-but-still-slathered-in-christianity) and the more Starbucks Coffees you have on street corners, the less evil you are. No matter what you do. So the UK can do something like this and we give them a thumbs-up, while we cheer on the brutality from the Egyptian junta 'cause they're somewhat less-Islamic than the last guys (and interestingly, generally paler), and we give ourselves - our white, Christocentric, drowning-in-mediocre-coffee selves a perfect score, even when we're strapping car batteries to the genitals of the prisoners that someone sold to us.

[HardTimes99]

12. Your second paragraph may be the best one-paragraph rant I have read on DU (or anywhere, for that

matter). That last clause -- "even when we're strapping car batteries to the genitals of the prisoners that someone sold to us" -- sent shivers down my spine for its overall aptness.

Wonder what Abe "Last, best hope of mankind" Lincoln would be saying about now. Really makes one wonder.

[Waiting For Everyman]

2. Poitras was harassed in this manner for four years for absolutely nothing, too.

We're hearing about this so much because Miranda is famous as being Greenwald's partner. But it's happening to unknown people too, which is much worse because fame at least shines a spotlight on it, making the PTB a little more restrained than they would usually be. These terrorism laws are being terribly abused, and not just as a rare exception. All of those anti- due process laws need to go.

Your point is well-taken, BB. Imagining the shoe on the other foot does put it into perspective.

[awoke_in_2003]

3. Or had we done it under Bush. nt

[longship]

4. If my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon.

'Nuf said?

Contrafactus?

I appreciate what you are trying to say here. I just couldn't resist poking some good hearted fun.


Oh! And an R&K.

[msanthrope]

5. If a journalist's spouse was taking a flight to Rio through NK or Iran, paid for by the Guardian,

and loaded with electronic equipment, I'd suspect that journalist in question was either criminally stupid, OR, had the world's worst travel agent.

I really think this episode shows just how fine a line there is between stupid and clever.

[Harmony Blue]

7. Blaming the victim

hasn't worked out for you in the past and it isn't working for your argument now....

[boston bean]

9. That one ought to admit they think journalists and their spouses, who expose

documents that were leaked to them are terrorists.

[msanthrope]

14. Kindly do not call me "that one" boston bean--you know full well my DUer name is

"msanthrope" and I would expect better courtesy from you towards someone who bothered to answer your thread.

I would think Mr. Miranda's detention deplorable if he had not agreed to carry documents between Snowden and Greenwald. Mr. Snowden is currently under indictment within the United States and I have no doubt that our UK allies are willingly helping us in the investigation.

If Snowden and Greenwald were stupid enough to think this scheme up, then they get what they deserve.

[boston bean]

15. Is he a terrorist? Answer that, will ya? nt

[msanthrope]

17. When you apologize for your rudeness, I certainly shall entertain your questions. nt

[boston bean]

18. No apology will be forth coming. Stop taking things so personally.

Not answering the question and making it about my response to another person, tells me all I need to know.

[msanthrope]

20. As I said, when you apologize for your rudeness to me, I shall be happy to answer your questions.

If you already 'know' the answer, as you claim, then why bother to engage with me, at all?

[boston bean]

21. I don't know the answer. I suspect, I think I know. But not for sure, cause you haven't said it

outright.

That yes, you do think journalists and their spouses on a trip paid by a a newspaper, are terrorists. Just because they have in their possession, information that was leaked to the press, about government wrong doing.

Wrong answer, if you ask me, but you are entitled to think what you want.

[msanthrope]

22. Apologize, and I'll clear it up for you. Then you'll know for sure. nt

[boston bean]

24. Not that important. I give apologies when I feel bad about something I've

done or said.

And in reality, I really don't need you to confirm, like you said.

[msanthrope]

26. "I give apologies when I feel bad about something I've done or said." That's a rather

interesting sentence.

You don't apologize when you've been rude, but when you 'feel bad.' So if you don't feel bad, then you haven't done wrong?

That is an attitude I have encountered in my profession. It is not an empathetic one, I find.

[boston bean]

32. I don't usually go demanding apologies from people who have done nothing wrong.

In order to deflect answering a simple question.

But that's just me.

And yes, when someone gives me an apology, I hope it's because they realize they have done something wrong. Not just an apology that means nothing.

So, I'm not going to give you an apology that means nothing. I give them when they are heartfelt.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. It's not about Bean.

That tactic is old, tired, gassed out and wheezing for a break, send in another tactic.

[msanthrope]

27. Well, it is. You will note that I answered questions below, to someone who was polite. I would

answer your questions, since you remarked on my tactic, as opposed to myself.

[Bluenorthwest]

33. No it is not, it is about you evading the subject.

The tactic I remarked upon was evading the subject by attempting to make another DUer into that subject. It is a tactic I find to be reprehensible and in opposition to the point and purpose of DU.
I have asked you a question below.

[msanthrope]

53. And I answered all of your questions, below. nt

[boston bean]

34. You most certainly did not answer the question below.

[msanthrope]

11. When one accepts the job of courier, and accepts the support from the Guardian,

and one goes to Berlin for a week, one is not a victim....one is a player, who either miscalculated badly, or is trying to do a set up.

David Miranda was detained. Can you show any harm from that detention?

[tumtum]

16. Yeah, the fact that he was detained at all,

and under the UK's anti terror law, which this detainment had nothing to do with terror, except maybe to terrorize future whistleblowers and journalists from exposing govt wrongdoing.

[msanthrope]

19. Well, let's parse this a bit--the initial encounter and request to search needs no 'reason' other

than the fact that you are arriving through customs. The continued detainment does need a reason. We don't know why it went from A to B.

But, if he was carrying national security documents from a person currently under indictment in the US, I can why he was detained. One does not have to be a 'terrorist' to be involved in a terror investigation.

[Bluenorthwest]

30. If he was doing that, he should have been arrested. He was not arrested. This means they

had no evidence of a crime, don't you think? You claim the UK found stolen national security documents and then let him go? Can you explain why they'd do such a thing? It seems irrational and counter to their stated goals.
You keep saying he was carrying such documents, but he was not arrested....why is that, do you think?

[msanthrope]

38. I've discussed this several times today--there's a mistaken notion that if LEOs let you go, it's

because they have "no evidence of a crime." I have clients in prison who think that. I've had clients in prison who were stupid enough to think that once the cops let you go, they aren't allowed to investigate everything you do afterwards, and everyone you come into contact with.

You should never, ever think that your initial encounter with law enforcement is anything but that...your initial encounter. The cops may have enough to arrest you--they may not. They may let you swim around a bit and see what bigger fish you attract, particularly if you are connected to a much bigger fish...

Mr. Greenwald indicated that Mr. Miranda was couriering stolen documents from a person currently under indictment in the US:

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=0

If he wasn't arrested, then I would tell you that I would get rid of everything Mr. Miranda came back with. Can't be too careful.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Of course you are aware that sending a person off to their own home nation is not the same

as an 'initial encounter' with one's own local law enforcement. How are they going to 'follow up'? Kidnap him?
Your claim that he had stolen national security documents and was simply allowed to return to Brazil is absurd.

[msanthrope]

64. Mr. Greenwald indicated that he had stolen documents--

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=0

As for following up, well, you don't know what Mr. Miranda agreed to do, do you?

[SidDithers]

66. Come back soon, again...

Sid

[Safetykitten]

6. Oh yes indeedy.

[HardTimes99]

8. The defenders of this shit are willing, even eager, to throw Amnesty International (the UK

chapter) under the bus.

Absolutely jaw-droppingly incredible.

I never dreamed I would see such endorsements of tyranny and police-state tactics here of all places.

[Safetykitten]

10. All is fair in love and love of our leader.

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. Nothing surprises me anymore

For a few years it has not

[fujiyama]

71. Can you link to that post?

I'm no longer surprised by anything here. All I see from the authoritarian wing is a standard set of talking points. I like that list someone made of 14 points and sure enough every one of their posts boils down to one of them.

They have absolutely no credibility - not when they're on the same side of this issue as Dick Cheney.

[HardTimes99]

72. Here's a link to KPete's OP that posted the Amnesty Internatioanl UK statement:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023488723

There's one comment in the thread that stands out for its complete absence of empathy and, for want of a better word, cruelty. "Victim blaming' doesn't even start to come close to describing it.

Really unbecoming a board styling itself 'progressive'.

[fujiyama]

73. Sure enough, I didn't see the comment

Must have been hidden. I'm tired of rehashed talking points from 2006, from Dick Cheney and his ilk - which is what they have resorted to.

[go west young man]

13. Nationalism is the reason.

People bend and shape their moral compass's based upon where their national interests lie. It's really quite banal.

[Bluenorthwest]

23. Bean, note the concerted effort to call Miranda Greenwald's 'boyfriend' or just 'bf'. This is part

of the degrading of their relationship as an attempt to make it seem ok. On this thread you have people saying that a man coming home to his spouse has 'accepted a job'. From his bf.
That 'bf' shit really angers me. So dismissive, so clearly stating that same sex couples are not equal to 'real married straights'.
They are all over DU typing 'boyfriend' about adult long term legal spouses. BF, they say because it's so mature. Or because the initials stand for other things...

[msanthrope]

29. Are they married? I've read boyfriend, spouse, partner, from various sources. If they are married,

then I wish them well.

[boston bean]

36. Greenwald called him his "partner". Use that, please.

Anything else seems to be somewhat dismissive, and lowering of the meaning of their relationship, for reasons that could be construed as homophobic.

[msanthrope]

41. Well, I've used 'partner'--but I did cite the article where Greenwald is interviewed and the term

'boyfriend' is used by the magazine below thread.

[boston bean]

42. Just give the apology and be done with it. No biggie.

LOL

[msanthrope]

44. Certainly. If you are offended that I noted that I read the term "boyfriend" in Out Magazine

in an interview of Mr. Greenwald, used to describe his relationship with Mr. Miranda then I am truly sorry.

[boston bean]

45. Nice non apology. Puts the honus on me.

At least when you tried to make me give this sort of apology, I refused.

[msanthrope]

47. Honus Wagner is dead. nt

[boston bean]

48. Thanks for the info. nt

[msanthrope]

50. You might like this site---

http://www.damnyouautocorrect.com/

And I apologize for my teasing.

[Bluenorthwest]

58. Out used that term 2 years ago. Not currently as you claim.

Relationships change. It is not ok to call Hillary Clinton Bill's main girlfriend even though once they were just that. To do so now would be snarky.

[msanthrope]

60. Well, after decades of marriage, yes. I was unaware that Mr. Greenwald was married recently. nt

[Bluenorthwest]

37. I am asking you directly to cite any legitimate source that uses the term 'boyfriend'. You claim to

have seen this. I think you have seen it from the very people I pointed out, who are using the term to degrade and demote their relationship all over DU.
Can you show even one actual published source calling them 'boyfriends' or worse 'bf' as the worst on DU are doing? Any newspaper, magazine?
Do you have any citation at all to offer up? Or are you just using another tired old tactic?
To call a person's spouse or domestic partner their 'bf' is insulting to them and to others in same sex relationships. Can you seriously claim to be surprised to find that our?

[msanthrope]

39. Out Magazine---which I think I've cited before. They interviewed Mr. Greenwald about Mr. Miranda--

Given Greenwald's intellectual fecundity and argumentative ferocity, being gay may be the least interesting thing about him. But even Greenwald doesn't claim that his sexual orientation doesn't matter. After all, if he were straight he would be living in Manhattan, his home for most of the last 20 years. Instead, he lives in Rio de Janeiro, barred from moving to the United States with his Brazilian boyfriend, David Michael Miranda.

http://www.out.com/news-commentary/2011/04/18/glenn-greenwald-life-beyond-borders

They also used that word to cite a prior relationship--

When he and his former boyfriend, Werner Achatz, an Austrian-born lawyer, tried to lease an apartment, they were told they couldn't aggregate their incomes. "They said they only do that for married couples," Greenwald recalls. "We said we were a married couple." When that didn't fly, Greenwald became his own lawyer, suing the landlord for sexual orientation and marital status discrimination.

Please note--I didn't use the term 'boyfriend', I merely noted that I had read it. I would use 'partner' or 'spouse' if they are married.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Of course the article you cite is more than 2 years old. My cousin recently got married, two years

ago she was dating this guy, then he was her boyfriend, then her fiance. Now spouse. Almost every couple that is legally a couple started out as friends. Things change over time. The Obamas were not always married, once he was her boyfriend. To call her his girlfriend now is not appropriate at all, don't you agree?
Clearly you can not show many any current sources that are currently calling them 'boyfriends' as so many on DU are today. And that was my point. That many are engaged in a dismissive lexicon characterizing these guys as 'boyfriends' or 'bf's'. You found an aged article and touted that as one of the many sources you have seen currently calling Miranda Greenwald's 'boyfriend'.
I stand my my original statement, many on DU are using 'boyfriend' and 'bf' to dismiss and demote their relationship on the basis that it is a same sex relationship.
I hope you will correct those creeps who persist in this, it makes them look like drooling bigots.

[msanthrope]

57. Did they get married? As I noted, if they did, I wish them well, and expect that Mr. Greenwald will

soon file in the US for Mr. Miranda to obtain a visa/be able to travel with him.

Certainly, I will correct any DUer who uses a homophobic term.

[Bluenorthwest]

61. Your cite was 2 years old.

But you attempted to claim it was a source you were seeing call them boyfriends today. Creepy tactic. Anything to slight the gay folks, that's so clear from so many of these 'boyfriend' posts on DU today.

[msanthrope]

63. Haven't you moved the goalposts? You challenged me to give a reputable source that used the term,

and when I did, you then claimed that that because the interview with Greenwald was in 2011, it was no longer valid.

It seems that I met your initial challenge, but now, you are aggravated with me.

I did not write the Out piece. Nor was I aware that Mr. Greenwald and Mr. Miranda are married.

[HardTimes99]

31. AKA: "genteel homophobia" (like "genteel racism" or "genteel sexism") - nt

[Bluenorthwest]

35. Yep. That's exactly what it is.

They thought they could get by with that bullshit. They were wrong. It is insulting to every last one of us.

[msanthrope]

40. Well, except that I cited an interview with Greenwald where the term "boyfriend" was actually used

by the magazine.

And, in fact, you and I have already tangled over this issue, haven't we? If I remember correctly, you accused me of homophobia when I told you that both Mr. Seinfeld and Mr. Greenwald could date (and marry) people significantly younger than themselves, and I would have the same opinion of them?

[Bluenorthwest]

56. The article you cite is over 2 years old.

So it was 'actually used' when they were 'actually boyfriends'. And to be clear, I am not accusing you of homophobia but of indulging in today's homophobia tainted tactic of calling legal partners or spouses 'boyfriends'.
Your cite is very much out of date. There are articles that call the President a State Senator because he was one. He's not now, and to call him by that title would of course be inaccurate and potentially insulting to him.
Now you are informed.

[msanthrope]

59. I am sorry--but I did not know that Mr. Greenwald had gotten married in the last two years. I used

'partner' to describe his relationship. Should I use 'spouse?'

[Bluenorthwest]

65. Here is a thread from 2011 in which folks attack Greenwald for being gay. You comment much on

the thread, all that time ago. Among other things, the legal status of Greenwald and Miranda was discussed in detail in that thread. In 2011. A flame bait thread that got the OP ppr'd.
Everyone reading this exchange should read that entire thread, and see you pulling the same 'are they married' bullshit in 2011. Playing dumb is a shitty tactic. Attempting it again years later is just stupid.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100297376

[msanthrope]

67. I am sorry--I mistook what you were saying about the Out Magazine article from 2011 (same as the

thread you are citing) as offensive because since 2011 they got married (or the equivalent,) and I did not acknowledge that.

[Bluenorthwest]

69. That article is not the same as the thread I am citing. That thread is an anti gay hate fest

against Greenwald and other gay people which predates the whole Snowden thing. You are in that thread pulling the 'oh are they married' crap' then too. Such duplicity. And for what?
Amazing that some cling to their old modes of speaking no matter how the world around them changes.

[SidDithers]

68. Have Greenwald and Miranda married? Is Miranda now Greenwald's spouse?...nt

Sid

[JustAnotherGen]

46. Honestly?

And I'm not being snarky here - I actually would be really surprised if that spouse/significant other was an American and they were stopping into North Korea or Iran and the thumb drive was NOT Taken.

I would absolutely expect if it of North Korea or Iran. And it has nothing to do with race/religion.

Iran, North Korea, China, Russia, etc. etc. they would be nuts to not want to get their hands on American classified information. Could you imagine what Bolivia would do if they had it? But why Great Britain wanted it . . . that concerns me.

[msanthrope]

49. Great Britian gave it to us. nt

[JustAnotherGen]

51. Now here's the critical question

Would North Korea or Iran just hand it over to us?

My answer. No way jose.

[msanthrope]

52. Iran? For the right price, sure. North Korea? We'd send in our best undercover CIA

agent....

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/what-happened-to-dennis-rodmans-north-korean-rescue-mission

[JustAnotherGen]

54. Ha!

This is true . . . I wonder if Carmen Electra sings Nobody Does It Better when she takes a shower!

[JoeyT]

70. It would depend on how critical that journalist

had been of the president in the past. That's the standard we're measuring things by now.