David Miranda was employed as a messenger to carry stolen government documents.

[ProSense]

Why would anyone expect that he wouldn't be detained?

That's like someone stealing jewelry, and handing the stolen items off to a familiy member to take from point A to point B, and then screaming foul when that family member is detained.

Britain Detains the Partner of a Reporter Tied to Leaks
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023486967

Snowden journalist to publish UK secrets after Britain detains partner
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023488978

[cthulu2016]

1. And he wasn't charged with a crime because he's so handsome

[ProSense]

5. You wanted him "charged with a crime"?

Should the family member carrying the stolen jewels have been charged with a crime?

They confiscated the materials.

[GeorgeGist]

16. Yes. Is it really so hard to accept that they got NOTHING.

[cthulu2016]

18. You have a rather quaint notion of information as a tangible object.

Every copy of the Guardian printed is, in your view, contraband.

As well as some of your own posts that contain exerpts from or links to certain material.

[ProSense]

29. You have no point.

Do you really believe there isn't going to be an attempt to retrieve the information not yet published?

Are you seriously waiting for an "oh well" moment related to Snowden's case?

[cthulu2016]

37. Oh, so it is prior-restraint of publication you are cheering?

Sorry, I missed that.

Well, then clearly no problem.

[ProSense]

61. Oh please. The outrage that this was an innocent person being detained

is now being supplanted by willful ignorance about why a person employed to carry stolen documents was detained.

Not only that, the deflective nonsense about why he wasn't arrested is beyond transparent.

[cthulu2016]

65. Oh, so it is prior-restraint of publication you are cheering?

[ProSense]

70. I'm "cheering" the apparent melt down related to the initial hype.

Last edited Mon Aug 19, 2013, 01:50 PM - Edit history (1)

"Oh, so it is prior-restraint of publication you are cheering?"

Yeah, sort of like Greenwald holding information back and threatening to release it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023489540

Or Snowden releasing information to China.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023481722

I don't approve. I've never been a fan of the Greenwald hype machine. You know that, right

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023481343
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023478767

[cthulu2016]

139. So you are cheering the idea of prior restraint?

[KurtNYC]

69. In my experience there is no logic allowed in these types of threads

And the "facts" are merely links to other threads started by the same person.

[Zorra]

144. Just dreeeaamy! nt

[Nuclear Unicorn]

220. But if looks could kill. rawr

[The Magistrate]

2. That Does Seem The Case, Ma'am

Claims and arguments to the contrary are awfully humorous to read.

[cali]

15. If that was the case and he was carrying stolen materials

and classified information, why didn't the British authorities charge him? Why the outrage from Brit politicians?

[pnwmom]

140. They probably haven't yet determined what is in the materials.

Any charges would probably require further investigation.

[GeorgeGist]

19. He wasn't arrested so apparently that's not the case.

[The Magistrate]

24. Not Necessarily, Sir

Unless my recollection is in error, electronic devices in his possession were confiscated. There are many reasons why discretion regarding immediate arrest and arraignment could have been exercised.

[Logical]

90. Or maybe no evidence to arrest Ma'am. n-t

[cali]

33. You seem very comfortable with this detention- unlike many

members of the Labour Party who are openly questioning not only the law but Miranda's detention under that law.

Ah, yes. You're ever so double subtle and nuanced. Except when you aren't, dear sir.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-labour-glen-greenwald

[The Magistrate]

43. Rights Or Wrongs Of This Aside, Ma'am

In order for him to have expected to pass through Heathrow en route between one person involved with the Snowden materials and another person involved with them, in possession of various electronic devices capable of storing information, without being braced by police, he would have to be profoundly stupid.

"Reality is that which, when you cease to believe in it, continues to exist."

[cali]

47. let me ask you what I asked the OP: How do YOU or she know what

Mr. Miranda was carrying? She's making the claim that that he was carrying stolen documents without a shred of evidence and you're going along with it.

not very subtle or nuanced of you, but it's amusing the heck out of me to see your admiring posts.

[MADem]

59. Geez. It was reported in the NYT who got it from Greenwald. Is that "proof" enough for you?

You don't do your veracity any favors when you fail to read the seminal documents surrounding this particular imbroglio, and then you opine angrily about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html

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.

[grasswire]

83. catch up

The following sentence in the material you quoted is unattributed.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

That is the assessment of the NYT reporter. Not a quote from Greenwald.

[MADem]

94. You'll need to prove it. There are three attributions to Greenwald in that paragraph.

Beginning, middle and end.

When you prove to me that Greenwald didn't say that, I'll believe it. But just because a reporter didn't indulge in a run on sentence doesn't mean that the comments in the entire paragraph are not attributable to Greenwald.

I'll wait while you gather the evidence that stipulates that Greenwald didn't say that....

[DirkGently]

126. Because it's stupid not to expect abuse of power.

That's quite the logic you're employing there. A man is detained under a anti-terrorism statute, without charge, for nine hours, and has his personal possessions confiscated without explanation.

Because he is connected to a journalist who has embarrassed the U.S. government, and might therefore be expected to be carrying information being used for that journalist's reports, he is "profoundly stupid" if he did not assume his person and possessions would be seized at the nearest airport?

Maybe. Maybe it's "stupid" for people to fail to expect the grotesque abuse of power.

Rationalizing it and blaming the victim for it, however, is obscene, demented, and sick.

[The Magistrate]

127. Especially When You Are Engaged In Tweaking It, Sir

That is when you should be most alert, and careful in trade-craft....

[muriel_volestrangler]

53. No, Sir - they are not 'stolen'

Under English law, copies of documents are not 'stolen', since the owner has not been deprived of them. Possessing them is not an offence. This is important - ProSense's propaganda is misleading, and indicates her desire to libel Miranda.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3488096

[The Magistrate]

63. Now, Ma'am, You Are Just Being Silly

Snowden obtained documents without authorization, in violation of the law. Copies of these are fruit of a poisoned tree, and a person may freely refer to them as 'stolen documents' under ordinary lay meanings. It is also unclear whether law regarding 'trade secrets' covers a case of classified information extracted from a government's files. Persons have certainly been prosecuted over photographs of classified documents, without the actual piece of paper ever being removed. You may, of course, have managed to undermine a common line of argument offered here, that the young man's not being arrested proves he had nothing untoward in his possession....

[MADem]

68. +1 nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. In violation of American law, not German, British or Brazilian

Miranda is a Brazilian citizen, who was en route from Germany to Brazil via the UK. Copies of the documents are on the DU servers, and in millions of computer caches around the world. American law does not apply.

'Untoward'? They are 'untoward' if you support an authoritarian state. If you accept that Snowden has started a vital conversation about the US surveillance state (one which even President Obama claims to welcome, though I think he's lying about that), there's nothing 'untoward' about them at all.

If you think they are 'untoward', you are on the wrong side, morally. I expected better of you, sir.

[The Magistrate]

82. I Expect, Sir, England Has Laws Against Obtaining Classified Information Without Authorization

The general rule regarding extradition is that the act must be defined as criminal in both jurisdictions. Judging by some reports over the course of this matter, some of the documents may have referenced classified information regarding English agency's activities.

Snowden certainly broke the law. On his own statement, he took the job with Booz-Allen with the intent to abscond with classified information, including materials he was not authorized to view. He did this, in my view, to secure a political effect damaging to President Obama, in service of his own right libertarian political creed. It also seems evident, from public statements, that he engaged in prior communication amounting to conspiracy with two journalists, and if the law were strictly applied, both would be open to charges. It is one thing if someone simply delivers something to a journalist, drops it on him or her, so to speak, and quite another if the delivery is arranged in advance with some awareness of what the material is and how it was obtained.

I have no interest in participating in a right libertarian scheme to do damage to President Obama and my Party's prospects in upcoming elections. I do not look favorably on people who do participate in it. I consider them to be exercising poor judgement.

[muriel_volestrangler]

89. It's not UK classified information; and none of Greenwald, Poitras or Miranda

broke a law to obtain it. Neither did The Guardian newspaper, which has had some of it on its servers for months, and which has not been investigated in any way.

The excuse used to detain Miranda was the 2000 Terrorism Act, about which the Met Police has been explicit:

24. The withheld information in this case consists of the ethnicity data held by the MPS in respect of stops made under Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000. MPS has argued that the purpose of the legislation is to prevent terrorist activity. In this respect, it told the Commissioner:
“Schedule 7 is used only for the purpose of countering terrorism”.

25. The Commissioner is aware that the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA) published practice advice on the use of Schedule 7 in 2009. This publication clearly states that Schedule 7 powers should only be used to counter terrorism and may not be used for any other purpose.

http://www.ico.org.uk/~/media/documents/decisionnotices/2011/fs_50361870.pdf

They cannot detain people in such a fashion (no lawyer, non-cooperation is a criminal offence) for stolen goods (which is what the OP you are poorly defending tried to use as an equivalent). It is for suspected association with terrorism, not for confidential material, no matter what government it originates from.

"I have no interest in participating in a right libertarian scheme to do damage to President Obama and my Party's prospects in upcoming elections. I do not look favorably on people who do participate in it. I consider them to be exercising poor judgement."

You are supporting, sadly, a military-industrial complex attempt to cover up their unconstitutional (there has been a ruling that some of it is unconstitutional, but the public are not allowed to see the ruling), but lucrative, activities, and siding with authoritarians. You are putting party before constitution. A sad come-down for you.

[The Magistrate]

92. It Is Quite Possible, Sir, Ms. Poitras And Mr. Greenwald Broke Laws In Obtaining The Material

There is a sub-section of that act which empowers extreme discretion at a point of entry, and whatever is stated for public consumption by authorities seeking to secure public acceptance, the law on its face does allow this action, at the point where it took place.

At some point, people do have to show some understanding of the realities of a situation. In order for anyone to have expected mr. Miranda would pass through Heathrow en route between one person involved with the Snowden materials and another person involved with them, in possession of various electronic devices capable of storing information, without being braced by police, they would have to be profoundly stupid.

I do indeed put what is best for my country and its people above all, and this requires driving the assemblage of tea-baggers and Paulites damaging the present and menacing the future back into their kennels and caves. You may expect me to display a complete lack of scruple where this is concerned.

[MADem]

109. +1,000 nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. Now we've realised the police have changed the circumstances under which they invoke

the all-encompassing Schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act, then, yes, we can see they were bound to take this opportunity to copy the data. But since they had previously emphasised the act was only to be used to counter terrorism (which allowed them to get out of a freedom of information request for the ethnic mix of the people whose phone data they were taking), even informed people are surprised by this. Take, for instance, the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation:

Terrorism law watchdog calls for explanation of Miranda detention

David Anderson QC becomes latest figure to question treatment of Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald's partner

Britain's anti-terrorist legislation watchdog has called on the Home Office and Metropolitan police to explain why anti-terror laws were used to detain the partner of the Guardian journalist Glenn Greenwald for nine hours at Heathrow airport.

Amid mounting concern across the political spectrum over the treatment of David Miranda, David Anderson QC said the detention of Greenwald's partner on Sunday appeared to be "unusual".
...
In an interview with The World at One on BBC Radio 4, Anderson said that only 40 of the 60,000 to 70,000 people questioned under schedule 7 of the 2000 Terrorism Act are detained for more than six hours. "You can see what an unusual case this was if it is correct that Mr Miranda was held right up to nine-hour limit," Anderson said.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-detention-terrorism-law-watchdog

You'll also see in that story, or links from it, the Labour shadow home secretary, a Tory former shadow home secretary, and the chairman of the home affairs select committee expressing their surprise at what was done, and demanding answers. These are some of the people most informed in the world about how British terrorism law is used.

It is cowardly of you to claim you're taking your stance to fight tea-baggers and Paulites. Mainstream Republicans, the ones who actually stand a chance of controlling the USA, and just as eager to attack Snowden and Greenwald as you are - they've thrown 'traitor' around with abandon. You have just lost your scruples on this subject, along with Boehner, Graham and, sadly, Obama.

[The Magistrate]

120. If This Usage Surprised Them, Sir, They Are Not Fit For Their Jobs

Because the clause granting such wide discretion at entry points is quite plain in print, and what is permitted will, always, be done, sooner or later.

For the rest, the degree of division and vitriol on this site demonstrates the point and method of the operation; to demoralize and embroil in intra-cine conflict left elements which might otherwise be working hard and effectively to take advantage of increasingly unpopular rightist actions and stances.

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. This isn't about us, sir, it's about freedom

The world doesn't revolve around your party, or this website. You are getting slightly paranoid if you think things are done to demoralize you.

[The Magistrate]

124. Actually, Sir, It Is about The Coming Elections

This place simply illustrates the effect in one small segment of persons.

[muriel_volestrangler]

133. Conveninent to blame anything on elections within 18 months

when there's 24 months between such elections. It's also pathetic.

[The Magistrate]

134. Campaigning Never Ceases Here, Sir

Governing is campaigning in the United States at present, and has been for some time. The side which forgets or neglects this loses seats in legislatures, and cannot secure votes for passage of legislation.

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. So you're supporting the Cheney/Boehner side

because you can't admit Obama has got this wrong. So it's "the spies are always right".

You will kill the soul of the Democratic party this way. Look at Tony Blair. He did this kind of thing - fall in lockstep with the neoconservatives, on the grounds that you have to 'look tough', and that human rights are not a big electoral concern.

[The Magistrate]

143. By That Style, Sir, You Support The Paulite/Randite Looting Side Of The Question

Try that sort of wheeze on someone who cares what other people think.

[muriel_volestrangler]

148. It was you who started trying to define this by which side had some Republicans on

If you actually remembered some morals, and your own constitution, you'd be arguing about what is right, not defining your response by what is opposite to the Pauls. Since you pulled this into the gutter of partisan advantage, I pointed out the slimy toads you are eagerly embracing. If you can't stand being reminded of the loathsome company you keep, then don't define this by "who agrees with whom". Remember your principles. You used to have some, sir, not "my party, right or wrong".

[The Magistrate]

152. My Statement, Sir, Is That Snowden Engaged In A Political Operation To Harm President Obama

And to damage electoral prospects of the Democratic Party, in furtherance of his own right libertarian adherences. I do not see much room for honest doubt regarding that, given his own known allegiances, and those of persons working closely with him in this. Persons who join from the left the hue and cry he has contrived are playing into his purpose. Objectively, as a hard old Leninist would say, that is the effect of their actions.

[VanillaRhapsody]

111. Is suspected possession of stolen goods against British or Brazillian law?

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. As I've pointed out, there was no theft under English law

Copying is not theft. Your question is therefore irrelevant.

[MADem]

173. Don't quit your day job now...

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/computer_misuse_act_1990/#an06

[muriel_volestrangler]

174. Nothing about 'theft', 'stolen' or 'steal' there

Snowden himself would have been guilty under that act if he used UK computers for unauthorised purposes; he'd be extraditable to the US for that reason. But nothing about what he copied being 'stolen material'.

[MADem]

176. Whatever gets you through the night, there, Muriel!

Like I said, don't quit your day job.

[MFrohike]

213. I hope you're not a solicitor

You cited a statute that would be applicable to Snowden, if the applicable significant link with England and Wales could be found, in a conversation about Greenwald and Miranda. The statute in question applies to the actual unauthorized access, not the actual possession by a third party of the material.

[MADem]

214. I don't need to be a solicitor...

You're telling me it's legal to be an accessory in UK?

[MFrohike]

215. I honestly have no idea

However, the question of being an accessory is completely unrelated to the link you posted. The link you posted concerned unauthorized access to a computer, not possession of stolen property, not possession of classified material, and not accomplice liability. I pointed out that your link was irrelevant to the question and the usual practice, in America and probably England, of separating the crimes of theft and possession. You were confusing the question of potential charges for Snowden with the relevant authority, and potential charges, for holding Miranda. These are completely separate issues.

I said I hope you're not a solicitor because you didn't read your own link. If you're going to play internet lawyer, which everyone tries to do at some point, then do it right.

[MADem]

217. Look, in USA we have laws against theft.

In USA we have laws against being accessory to theft, as well.

We have laws against murder. We have laws against being an accessory to murder, too.

If all you're doing is driving the bank robber around, and you weren't in the bank saying "Stick 'em up," you're still going to the Big House.

Generally speaking, if there's a law against it, there's a law against being an accessory to it, or facilitating it, as well.

I think I'm playing at it just fine, but thanks for your concern.

[MFrohike]

219. You're right

I forgot why it's called "internet lawyer." Thanks for the reminder.

[MADem]

221. The bottom line is this--there's no law against having an opinion and expressing it.

And expressing an opinion on a little discussion board isn't going to change the course of history, in any event. What's done is done.

[Number23]

216. You and the Magistrate have given me the first glimmer of hope I've seen on this web site in months

Now, I don't place much stock in DU and haven't for a long time. But in spite of that, I have still been bewildered and disgusted by the level of "discourse" around here. A pre-schooler would be embarrassed to participate in some of the "discussion" that litters the home page of this web site with hundreds of recs. No subject is too deranged, no "source" too disreputable.

But you and the Mag have just given me a bit of hope that maybe the joint is salvageable after all.

[MADem]

218. Thank you. I think if we just refuse to descend to the level of those who would

disparage and shitfling, or go completely off the rails with absurd constructs, AND if we call it out when we see it, maybe we can get past this unfortunate chapter in our shared history.

[sigmasix]

160. this x 1000

There seems to be a lot of posters with the intention of doing damage to the democrat party and president Obama. They claim to have some sort of knowledge about the whole thing that indicates snowden deserves a parade and a holiday named after him. The right wing extremists believe they can drown out every other voice that calls for mature, deliberative understanding of the facts- not the conspiratorial hair on fire narrative being promulgated by Greenwald, Snowden, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck. Many DU members are aware of the true intentions of these conspiracy theory mongers, but have grown tired of the constant OPs that endlessly repeat the right wing narrative that President Obama is an enemy to America.
Why are teabaggers so cowardly that they disguise themselves as concerned progressives and post lies to some online discussion boards?

[Capn Sunshine]

156. a lot of hyperbole

if you're in possession of something stolen, it doesn't matter the country of your origin. You have something stolen, which is not legal to possess, anywhere.

Let's side for a moment at whose behest the items were stolen in the first place.

Because no one on DU seems to be asking that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

159. Snowden is a whistleblower

who kickstarted the conversation about reining in the surveillance society in the USA. Obama claims to want that conversation, but wants Snowden behind bars for starting it. The information was copied to inform the world, and the American people in particular, since it is they who must force their government to mend its ways.

[ljm2002]

136. You say, "Copies of these are fruit of a poisoned tree"...

...but that "fruit of a poisoned tree" phrase is usually applied when refusing to consider evidence at trial, not when talking about stolen goods / documents.

In any case, there is an issue of journalism here. Snowden did steal the documents, there is no one who claims otherwise, not even Snowden himself. But once a journalist gets their hands on the documents, their status is very different from that of the person who did the leaking / whistle blowing / theft, whatever you want to call it. Journalists in this country, at least, are protected in a way that Snowden would not be.

Furthermore, the documents in question were stolen from the US, not the UK; so why is the UK using its authority under terrorism statutes to detain someone who might have documents that were stolen from the US? If the US had charged him and had requested such help from the UK or Interpol that would be a different matter; however, that is not the case.

Finally, there is zero evidence that Miranda possessed stolen documents in the first place. He could have had drafts of articles by Poitras and/or Greenwald; or the beginning of a documentary; or chapters of Greenwald's book; or any number of other things related to these stories that are not the stolen documents themselves.

I cannot make any claim about what he had in his possession -- nor can you, nor can the UK authorities. Nor will they be able to, since Poitras will have ensured everything was encrypted.

[The Magistrate]

145. The Phrase Is Biblical in Origin, Sir, If Recollection Serves

And seems apt here, as no copies could be possessed had originals not been stolen.

The question of a journalist's possession of stolen documents is less cut and dried than you seem to imagine. If a journalist is simply gifted with stolen documents, there is no criminal liability for possessing them, or for publishing them. If a journalist has engaged in a conspiracy to acquire such items, with foreknowledge of the theft and communication towards receiving them with the thief, then there may well be criminal liability, both in connection with the theft, and in possession of its fruits.

While it seems to trouble and even surprise some people, law in the U.K. seems quite clear that detention on entry is at discretion of the police. As the law is written, no particular reason seems to be required. I have absolutely no idea what sort of communications may have passed between law enforcement authorities in the U.S. and the U.K. on the matter, nor, as you seem so fond of saying, do you. I do know that police do each other favors.

Whatever Mr. Miranda had is in the hands of the authorities, and will remain so. What one person can encrypt, another may decode. If anything worth having was on those devices, it was very foolish to put them near the reach of hostile authorities.

[ljm2002]

150. I do admire your ability to remain civil...

...it is something that has always made you stand out here at DU, and my hat is off to you for it. I certainly have not been able to maintain your level of civility.

But you are wrong on this issue, IMNSHO.

(As an aside, the question of whether the phrase "fruit of the poisoned tree" is of Biblical origin is irrelevant; my comment was about its use in legal matters, where there are many sources including the Bible, Shakespeare, and other historical sources -- none of which has any bearing on the usage of the phrase in the law. But back to the issue at hand...)

First of all: You are assuming facts not in evidence, namely, that the journalist in question "has engaged in a conspiracy to acquire such items, with foreknowledge of the theft and communication towards receiving them with the thief". There is zero evidence that is what took place. Now if someone can prove it, that's different; however, in our own system of jurisprudence, we are not allowed to go on fishing expeditions to attempt to prove something we suspect may be the case. Note I am not commenting on whether the UK was within its own laws to detain Miranda or anyone else for any reason at all; apparently their law allows them to do that, but the rest of us can certainly object to what is clearly an over-broad law, and what is clearly an abuse of power, with intent to intimidate.

And WTH do you mean by "as you seem so fond of saying"? I merely noted a FACT, which is that neither you nor I knows what information was in Miranda's possession when he was detained. Why is that considered provocative? It's a simple fact, although it must be inconvenient when one has just asserted that he was in possession of stolen documents, with no evidence to support that assertion.

Also, you say: "What one person can encrypt, another may decode." Maybe. There are actual theoretical limits on decryption, you might want to brush up on that. Poitras is very knowledgeable about what level of encryption is secure, as she has had to deal with it for other stories; also, both she and Greenwald no doubt benefited from Snowden's knowledge in this area as well.

Re: your last sentence: "If anything worth having was on those devices, it was very foolish to put them near the reach of hostile authorities." -- I must ask: what if nothing worth having was on those devices? Was it wrong of the UK to go on this fishing expedition / exercise in intimidation against journalists? Do these things work both ways, or only one way? Because it appears for you, anything Greenwald or Poitras or Miranda does is automatically suspect, while anything the authorities do in this matter is to be cheered.

[The Magistrate]

155. Actually, Sir, There Have Been Statements From The Persons Involved

Which strongly suggest foreknowledge and conspiratorial involvement on the part of the journalists, including communication with Snowden before he was employed at Booz-Allen.

If I were, myself, engaged in tweaking and defying the authorities of a particular country, I would take some care that neither I nor my loved ones came within their ready reach, and would be particularly leery of points of entry and transit, which have long been legal limbos regarding police authority. Both sides get to make their moves, after all....

[ljm2002]

158. I am not aware of any statement from Greenwald or Poitras..

....that "strongly suggest(s) foreknowledge and conspiratorial involvement" with Snowden. The only "evidence" that I have seen put forth is a timeline of when Snowden first contacted Greenwald -- after which Greenwald promptly ignored him for weeks, because Greenwald could not deal with the complexity of setting up and using encryption.

Now one may not believe what Greenwald says about all that; and one is certainly free to assume the worst about how it all went down. My problem is people making assertions about what happened, absent any real evidence. Just preface with "I think this is what happened" or "that is how I interpret it" or, if you want to persist in the claim that there are statements which "strongly suggest foreknowledge and conspiratorial involvement", then please, provide links to those statements so that the rest of us can look at the statements you are referring to and judge for ourselves whether your claim is borne out.

Finally I note that you have avoided answering my question about the UK and its fishing expedition. Instead, you are saying in effect that Greenwald and anyone who is close to him had better watch what they do and where they go, because he got the Big Bad Government(s) mad at him. To me, that is hardly the sort of thinking that we have historically prided ourselves on, here in the Land Of The Free. To me, freedom of the press has always been a Big F***ing Deal.

[Egalitarian Thug]

146. This is the hill upon which you've decided to stand? Really?

[MADem]

177. The Magistrate hasn't changed. Some people here at DU have, but not The Magistrate.

The Magistrate is on my list of Top Ten All Time Favorites. Good arguments, civil discussion, clever repartee.

An example for all of us to strive to emulate.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

184. I'm a little disappointed with you, Sir.

That you would place your name in agreement with an OP containing this absurd analogy:

That's like someone stealing jewelry, and handing the stolen items off to a familiy member to take from point A to point B, and then screaming foul when that family member is detained.

...Is disappointing, to say the least.

Seriously (and this is aimed more at the OP)? Copies of information broken down in bits of zeros and ones arranged on a magnetic hard-drive disk (or whatever the technical term is - I build houses not computers) is the same as transporting stolen tangible goods?

Seriously?

[Octafish]

3. Always defending the Police State

Excellent job, citizen! You have a bright future as a member of the Party.

[Whisp]

10. hey Octafish. I have a package...

You don't have to know what's in it, but can you deliver it for me? It will involve flying and crossing international borders. Now that we have your Police-less State - anything goes. No one to check up on anyone!

[Octafish]

23. I remember Stevie Wonder: 5 Companies That Make Money By Keeping Americans Terrified of Terror...

The game is over information. The powerful use it to keep the rest in the dark. Ask yourself "Why?"



IMFO: It's so they can continue to make a killing off of war and through their toadies in Washington.

5 Companies That Make Money By Keeping Americans Terrified of Terror Attacks

By Alex Kane
Alternet.org, August 16, 2013

Michael Hayden, the former director of the National Security Agency, has invaded [3] America’s television [4] sets [5] in recent weeks to warn about Edward Snowden’s leaks and the continuing terrorist threat to America.

But what often goes unmentioned, as the Guardian’s Glenn Greenwald pointed out, [6] is that Hayden has a financial stake in keeping Americans scared and on a permanent war footing against Islamist militants. And the private firm he works for, called the Chertoff Group, is not the only one making money by scaring Americans.

Post-9/11 America has witnessed a boom in private firms dedicated to the hyped-up threat of terrorism. The drive to privatize America's national security apparatus accelerated in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks, and it’s gotten to the point where 70 percent of the national intelligence budget is now spent on private contractors, as author Tim Shorrock reported. [7] The private intelligence contractors have profited to the tune of at least $6 billion a year. In 2010, the Washington Post revealed that there are 1,931 private firms [8]across the country dedicated to fighting terrorism.

What it all adds up to is a massive industry profiting off government-induced fear of terrorism, even though Americans are more likely to be killed by a car crash or their own furniture than a terror attack.

Here are five private companies cashing in on keeping you afraid.

1. The Chertoff Group

CONTINUED...

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/5-companies-make-money-keeping-americans-terrified-terror-attacks

No police state. Right.

[Whisp]

50. Over these years I've agreed with a lot of what you say, Octafish.

I know that Terror sells like a hot new product. I am aware of the dangers of a world where corporations are rulers and elections are facades - we've already had that for a very long time but yet more is sure to come.

I just don't want to be part of supporting the wrong people and with their wrong ideas. And I consider supporting Greenwald as one of those wrong people, him and Assange and Snowden and others involved. They too know that Terror sells like a hot new product, terror and fear of loss of even more privacy.

There are some awesome good people working for us all. Not all government is evil and heartless.
I prefer to see The Helpers sometimes and there is no Helper in GG, as I see it.

[Octafish]

62. Truth is what Democracy craves.

First off: Thank you, Whisp. Please know I value your perspective.

Regarding Truth: For all his faults, Greenwald is a journalist. In order to write, he's had to leave his country. That says a lot about where we are and where we're going.

Look who and what the WikiLeaks have exposed, an old OP, but news few on DU and even fewer in the general population know:

WikiLeaks Stratfor Dump Exposes Continued Secret Government Warmongering

War is big business. It's an insider's game. It's why we have so much secret government.

The last remaining enormous wads of cash in the Treasury are to be had for purchasing today's modern military industrial intel complex.



There's more than a trillion to be grabbed -- just for the Lockheed-Martin F-35.

Now keeping tabs on us -- people interested in using some of the nation's treasure for more peaceful purposes -- are for-hire spies. How do I know this? Julian Assange and Anonymous:

WikiLeaks' Stratfor Dump Lifts Lid on Intelligence-Industrial Complex

WikiLeaks' latest release, of hacked emails from Stratfor, shines light on the murky world of private intelligence-gathering

by Pratap Chatterjee
Published on Tuesday, February 28, 2012 by The Guardian/UK

What price bad intelligence? Some 5m internal emails from Stratfor, an Austin, Texas-based company that brands itself as a "global intelligence" provider, were recently obtained by Anonymous, the hacker collective, and are being released in batches by WikiLeaks, the whistleblowing website, starting Monday.

The most striking revelation from the latest disclosure is not simply the military-industrial complex that conspires to spy on citizens, activists and trouble-causers, but the extremely low quality of the information available to the highest bidder. Clients of the company include Dow Chemical, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon, as well as US government agencies like the Department of Homeland Security, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the Marines.

SNIP...

Assange notes that Stratfor is also seeking to profit directly from this information by partnering in an apparent hedge-fund venture with Shea Morenz, a former Goldman Sachs managing director. He points to an August 2011 document, marked "DO NOT SHARE OR DISCUSS", from Stratfor CEO George Friedman, which says:

"What StratCap will do is use our Stratfor's intelligence and analysis to trade in a range of geopolitical instruments, particularly government bonds, currencies and the like."

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/02/28-10?print

If it weren't for Anonymous and WikiLeaks, we probably wouldn't know about any of that.

It's no joke. It's no unimportant story. It's no boring history. Run by insiders, the secret government is key to making the system run on behalf of the few -- the 1-percent of 1-percent. Central to that is intelligence -- economically, politically and military useful information.

Which brings up the nation's purported free press, the only business mentioned by name in the entire United States Constitution, and how the organizations therein have miserably failed to feature prominently the sundry and myriad ways the insiders on Wall Street and their toadies in Washington do the work for Them.

The problem is systemic. The corruption is systemic.

Because it involves oversight of secret organizations -- the Pentagon, Homeland Security, CIA, etc -- Congress and the Administration often have no clue, let alone oversight, to what is happening because the corruption is marked "Top Secret."

Secret government also means We the People can't do our job as citizens, which is to hold them accountable and find the ones responsible in order to vote the crooks out and, it is hoped, the honest ones in.

With no citizen oversight, anything goes. And it doesn't stop.

Remember this fine fellow, US Navy fighter ace Randy "Duke" Cunningham?

Later a member of the United States Congress, he used his position to feather his nest, Big Time.



In his political career, Cunningham was a member of the Appropriations and Intelligence committees, and chaired the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Human Intelligence Analysis and Counterintelligence during the 109th Congress. He was considered a leading Republican expert on national security issues.

Currently, he's in USP Tuscon or another fine facility where he gets three squares, medical and dental.
He's due for release in a year or so. He'll be able to pick up his pension.

"The Duke Cunningham Act, also known as the Federal Pension Forfeiture Act, was introduced by U.S. Senator John F. Kerry in 2006. The bill would have denied pension benefits to any members of Congress convicted of bribery, conspiracy or perjury. The bill died in committee. (Source: The Press Enterprise)

Duke wasn't alone. He really was just one snake in a long line of snakes. Remember Dusty Foggo, Number 3 at CIA and close associate of CIA Director and former Congressman Porter Goss? Swells sitting atop the peak of political and military secrecy and power.

Unfortunately, when it comes to modern governance, no oversight means means the insiders are getting away with murder, and warmongering and treason and all the power that they bring. Appointed pretzeldent George W Bush on Valentine's Day 2007 put it in words: "Money trumps peace."

Secret government warmongering and war profiteering are systemic. Secret government is rotten to the core. What's more, in a democracy that once really was land of the free and home of the brave, secret government poses the greatest threat to true national security.

[robertpaulsen]

128. I'm adding that to my journal for permanent reference.

So that anyone wondering what the whole brouhaha over Assange/Manning/Greenwald/Snowden was who happens to wander through can just click this to get the real answer.

Dammit Octafish, I fuckin' love you! Seriously! You make wading through an absolute ocean of bullshit worthwhile, which was what this thread was until you posted the Truth and posted it well. So many times I'm tempted to walk away and give up because of the tidal wave of stupidity at hand. Then I read something like what you wrote above and tell myself, "No way! Speak truth to power! Spread truth to the masses!"

[Octafish]

183. I love you, Brother robertpaulsen!

Lies are the currency of a realm, not democracy. Ask the BFEE. They're always busy deflecting blame from where it belongs -- their criminality, warmongering and treason.

"Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories." -- George Walker Bush, a GOP-appointed pretzeldent of the United States.



"We must speak the truth about terror. Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th; malicious lies that attempt to shift the blame away from the terrorists, themselves, away from the guilty. To inflamOoe ethnic hatred is to advance the cause of terror." -- Commander-n-Thief George Walker Bush speaks to United Nations, November 10, 2001

Poppy didn't care much for "Conspiracy Theorists" either, mentioning them at the funeral of unelected president and former Warren Commissioner Gerald R. Ford.



"After a deluded gunman assassinated President Kennedy, our nation turned to Gerald Ford and a select handful of others to make sense of that madness. And the conspiracy theorists can say what they will, (smirk, captured in the photo above) but the Warren Commission report will always have the final definitive say on this tragic matter. Why? Because Jerry Ford put his name on it and Jerry Ford’s word was always good."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x3029417

Seldom remembered and never mentioned in the media or academia are the NAZI connections to the Warren Commission:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5572427

When so many find the Truth to be unbelievable shows what kind of remarkably times these are.

How many understood his telling laugh?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10021010833#post24

Poppy revealed himself to be very, very forgiving about one subject:

''Let’s forgive the NAZI war criminals.''

Poppy Bush wants us to move on with der business. He is quoted as stating the above in The New York Times of April 14, 1990.

Anyway, it's almost odd how few are left these days to remember his father, before-he-became-Sen. Prescott Sheldon Bush and his own role in trading with the enemy during World War II:



How utterly coincidental that the Bill of Rights is a thing of the past, Secret Government and Secret Surveillance are the new normal, and the Have-Mores have almost all of what there is to have. I'm sure not. And I'm sure glad not to be alone. Thanks for standing up to Them and shouldering so much of the load yourself, robertpaulsen.

[snooper2]

17. What is the deepest most important conspiracy you know about that we don't?

[Octafish]

26. What a profound question. Search my journal and let me know what you need help with:

I source about everything I post so people can fact-check.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=journals&uid=123447

Any corrections are always appreciated.

[Puzzledtraveller]

166. Like the Inner Party in 1984, they think they are safe, in fact immune

from the jack booted.

[Octafish]

182. As the faithful at ENRON...

...who swindled millions out of billions, they swallowed the Kool-Aid, even as Kenny Boy took their retirement money to Qatar.

[leftstreet]

4. Why wasn't he detained in Berlin?

Doesn't Germany care about global national security?

[cali]

6. really? you're actually claiming to know what he was carrying?

do tell.

[Le Taz Hot]

7. I understand it's supposed to be

108 degrees today and humid. I think I'll stay indoors.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

8. Why wasn't he arrested then?

?

[ProSense]

12. Would you have felt better if he had been? n/t

[cali]

20. answer the question instead of trying to weasel

out of. YOU claim he was in possession of stolen info.

Why wasn't he charged with the offense YOU claim he's guilty of?

[ProSense]

34. They didn't want to arrest him? They confiscated the documents?

I can see how this is a major issue: OMG.

It's like an attempt to claim that the reason he wasn't arrested is because what...he had stolen documents, but confiscating them wasn't enough?

[GeorgeGist]

21. You should feel bad that he wasn't ...

if your claim was true.

[Bluenorthwest]

31. He was not arrested because what you are saying is not the truth.

nt

[ProSense]

35. And

"He was not arrested because what you are saying is not the truth."

...you don't know what you're talking about.

Mr. Greenwald’s partner, David Michael Miranda, 28, is a citizen of Brazil. He had spent the previous week in Berlin visiting Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker who has also been helping to disseminate Mr. Snowden’s leaks, to assist Mr. Greenwald. The Guardian had paid for the trip, Mr. Greenwald said, and Mr. Miranda was on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

<...>

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.democraticunderground.com/10023486967

[Bluenorthwest]

57. If they found what you claim they found why wasn't he arrested? That article you link does not

say he had stolen national security documents nor that he was 'employed' to carry them. When they find illegal items and contraband at a border, they confiscate and arrest, they don't simply take your contraband and send you home with a tisk tisk.
You offer zero proof of huge statements you are crafting from whole cloth. The man was not arrested, which indicates that there was nothing to arrest him for and thus your claims are not correct.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

54. If he was breaking the law, yes.

Deal with it within the proper legal channels. Don't use anti-terrorism laws that don't apply to the situation to detain and harass.

[Recursion]

165. Because carrying improperly distributed classified material isn't a crime?

If I take documents from the safe at work and hand them to you, I'm committing a crime, you aren't. But they'll still want to take the documents from you.

(Cthulu2016's point upthread about how out of date these laws are in the digital age is well-taken, but that's the law we're stuck with.)

[ForgoTheConsequence]

205. This makes zero sense.

If it wasn't illegal then law enforcement shouldn't have touched it. And yes receiving stolen property IS A CRIME.

[Recursion]

209. You're imagining a theoretical world

If it wasn't illegal then law enforcement shouldn't have touched it.

Well, that's just wrong. Law enforcement has a legitimate interest in returning classified documents that have been improperly distributed. The fact that the courier isn't himself breaking a law doesn't really matter.

[Harmony Blue]

9. Miranda was let go

nice try.

[Safetykitten]

11. But the big question. Did he have a healthplan?

[cthulu2016]

13. So if I have this on my Kindle I should be detained? (more)

Might want to tighten up your argument.

Clearly carrying stolen government documents.

For that matter, you yourself have probably posted stolen government documents here at DU.

[Safetykitten]

14. +1

[LearningCurve]

22. Genius eom

[ProSense]

32. What a great argument!

LOL!

[cthulu2016]

38. Garnering the dreaded "refutation by LOL" = Winning

[NuclearDem]

103. It's the ProSense pattern

1) Post OP
2) Counter every argument against OP with ROFL smiley and snide bullshit.

Coincidentally I'm sure, this is often the same pattern of flame baiting trolls.

[truebrit71]

180. Indeed...

[cali]

39. what an exceedingly lame refutation of said argument

[ProSense]

45. Argument: Well someone has a book titled, "The Pentagon Papers."

The genius of that is much too much for anyone not a Greenwald/Snowden fan to grasp.

Let me grab a copy of the James Risen's article, and this should seal it.

[cali]

49. why are you weaseling out of the question you've been asked multiple times?

How would YOU know what Miranda was carrying? You claim he was carrying stolen documents. You haven't a clue.

[ProSense]

56. Actually,

"why are you weaseling out of the question you've been asked multiple times?

How would YOU know what Miranda was carrying? You claim he was carrying stolen documents. You haven't a clue."

...it appears that it's you who "haven't a clue"

Mr. Greenwald’s partner, David Michael Miranda, 28, is a citizen of Brazil. He had spent the previous week in Berlin visiting Laura Poitras, a documentary filmmaker who has also been helping to disseminate Mr. Snowden’s leaks, to assist Mr. Greenwald. The Guardian had paid for the trip, Mr. Greenwald said, and Mr. Miranda was on his way home to Rio de Janeiro.

<...>

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.democraticunderground.com/10023486967

[Bluenorthwest]

60. You keep posting that, but it does nothing to support your assertions.

The authorities did not arrest because they had no grounds to arrest.
But let's put that aside and see if you can prove in any way that Miranda was 'employed' to commit a crime. That is your own assertion. Going to see one's spouse is now 'employment'?

[LondonReign2]

157. She believes that by repeating it enough times it becomes fact

Or, as Chimpy put it, "catapulting the propaganda".

[grasswire]

91. the sentence included is not attributed to Greenwald.

It comes from the reporter himself, who did not attribute it to Greenwald.

All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.

No attribution. We donot know what Miranda was carrying.

[MADem]

67. So you don't trust Glenn Greenwald's word? He's the source of "what was David carrying."

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

Mr. Greenwald said.

Not ProSense, not the Tooth Fairy, not Santy Claus.

Mr. Greenwald said.

[ProSense]

78. The denials and name calling for acknowledging this fact is a thing to watch.

I mean, it's as if Greenwald's words are an attack on Greenwald.

[MADem]

93. Exactly!!! I am just astounded at how some wade in, fists-a-flailing, when they haven't even read

the source documents surrounding the issue, to angrily and aggressively defend Greenwald and Company from the "smears" (one of the many words of the week, along with "authoritarian" and "stasi&quot of ...... Greenwald.

It''s surreal. It's kind of funny too, in a weird, -ish way.

[EOTE]

163. Where in that does Greenwald say the documents were stolen?

Because that seems to be the gist of the argument.

[MADem]

167. He says he got them from Snowden, and Snowden admits that he stole them in that

Poitras Hong Kong video.

They weren't under the tree for him at Christmastime, now, were they?

To: Eddie
From: Santa

Merry Xmas!!! Enjoy!

The phrase "too clever by half" is starting to come to mind.

[EOTE]

169. He does not specify which documents where given and whether or not they were stolen.

That particular tidbit seems to be all in the mind of those dismissing Miranda's detainment.

[MADem]

170. I tell you what--you believe whatever you need to believe to get through your day.

I speak English, and I can read. Mr. Greenwald--who leaps to correct ANY mis-impression made about him via Twitter, hasn't taken to his keyboard to "correct" any misinterpretations.

I don't take your POV, so that's the end of that as far as we're concerned.

If you want to pick through NYT and other articles with the fervor of a Talmudic scholar, be my guest, and knock yourself out, ok?

[EOTE]

172. Ah, so so long as the government has a reasonably good suspicion someone's carrying stolen documents

then it's all good?

And the fact that he wasn't arrested just shows how nice and cheery those folks are across the pond? You tell ME to research the issue when you were the one claiming that the article stated that it was GREENWALD who said that Miranda was carrying stolen documents. But whatever, governments clearly don't do anything not in the citizens' best interests.

[MADem]

175. Let's try this one more time, since you plainly didn't read what I wrote.

I speak English, and I can read. Mr. Greenwald--who leaps to correct ANY mis-impression made about him via Twitter, hasn't taken to his keyboard to "correct" any misinterpretations.

I don't take your POV, so that's the end of that as far as we're concerned.

If you want to pick through NYT and other articles with the fervor of a Talmudic scholar, be my guest, and knock yourself out, ok?

Now, you go on and fight, pointlessly and senselessly, with someone else. Your "arguments" are just flailing, and all your objections have been answered in this and other threads. You're just unwilling to read any comments by me or others that do not marry with your angry worldview.

I suggest more reading, and less hectoring. That is how we learn, after all.

[EOTE]

185. Your "argument" was that Greenwald used Miranda to move stolen documents.

You then "back up" your "argument" by quoting a piece that doesn't even hint that what you suggest is true. So long as simply quoting random bullshit affirms one's argument:

www.google.com

Check and mate.

[MADem]

186. You need to check yourself, and I'm uninterested in your mating habits, sorry.

As for "quoting random bullshit" I think you take the prize.

[EOTE]

187. I'm just as capable as you are of making unsubstantiated claims.

But I tend to actually provide proof of my statements. I don't make a claim, post completely irrelevant information to my claim, and then pretend as if that backs up my claim. You're certain a government would never detain someone without going through proper legal channels. I have far less faith than you do.

[MADem]

188. You're quite desperate for a fight. You're not going to get it from me, because you don't

read. I can't be bothered to engage people who are only interested in megaphoning their way down a thread, and that's what you are doing.

[EOTE]

194. I'm not looking for a fight, I'm looking for information. If you don't have it, that's fine.

You made a claim which wasn't backed up by the information you provided. I've asked if you could provide information that actually matches the claim you made. Apparently you think that me asking for you to provide a ounce of proof for your unsubstantiated claim is me "desperate for a fight". And perhaps it's me putting up with this silliness that constitutes the "megaphoning" part. I'll be sure to passively accept any information handed onto me as gospel truth in an effort to cut down on my fighting and megaphoning.

[MADem]

195. I did not make a claim that wasn't backed up. You just didn't like what I said, so you're badgering

me, like you think that will make a difference.

Hint--it won't.

[EOTE]

196. OK. I'll ask again. Where does it say that Miranda was carrying stolen documents?

I've read what you've linked to, I didn't see it anywhere. If you could point to a specific bit of text that backs up your assertion, it would be appreciated. But then again, I don't want to badger.

[MADem]

197. Here ya go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3495896

[EOTE]

199. Here ya go.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3497419

[MADem]

200. You can't be bothered to follow the news, so I can't be bothered to continue this charade. nt

[EOTE]

201. LOL. I don't follow the news because I ask you to provide a smidgeon of evidence to back up your

claims. I've seen assertions like yours many places other than here, mind you. But just like you, no one is able to provide anything close to evidence to suggest that Miranda was carrying stolen documents or that he was detained for legitimate reasons. But that's OK, because the REAL newshounds like yourself don't need any fancy evidence, just knowing is good enough.

[MADem]

202. Yep, and you have a swell day, now! Do some reading, why don't you? nt

[EOTE]

203. Yep, and you have a swell day constructing your own reality.

You might recall that's not a particularly progressive trait. I prefer to live in consensus reality.

[EOTE]

198. He admits no such thing.

You are suggesting that ANY document pertaining to Snowden is stolen so anyone affiliated with Snowden needs to be detained. That is well beyond tyranical, that's just sick. What's next? Do Snowden's nephews get detained as well? Perhaps someone holding Snowden's dental records? Surely they must be stolen as well!

[EOTE]

162. Not just a book, but STOLEN GOVERNMENT INFORMATION!

And you, apparently, think that we should all be detained and/or arrested if we have it. You can be obtuse all you'd like, people with more than a few functioning brain cells aren't buying what you're shovelling.

[EOTE]

161. This is what you've been reduced to?

Someone utterly slaughters your argument in a sentence or so and the best you can do is reply an idiotic "LOL"? Well, I guess it's true that you can't spell slaughter without laughter.

In the future, though, you might want to actually address the statements that tear apart your "logic". You look kind of silly otherwise.

[Waiting For Everyman]

25. Is he paid by the TROVE?

I'll bet the NYT guys could tell us.

[tridim]

27. Apparenly nothing is illegal in the world of make-believe.

I knew exactly how neo-DU would react to this, I'm guessing you did too.

Fish in a barrel.

[ForgoTheConsequence]

55. What law did he break?

And why wasn't he arrested?

[freshwest]

141. +1. The defense of the theft is 'If we win, it won't be illegal, as we'll make the rules then...'

Part of that Revolution they keep talking about. That end up with dictatorships.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. If that was the case he would have been arrested. He was not arrested. This indicates they had

no reason nor standing to arrest him. You claim he was committing a crime but the Brits let him go anyway? What's your basis for that claim?
Seems crazy to suggest he was caught red handed and then allowed to proceed as he pleased. But I"m sure you have evidence the Brits did not have, you should send it to them.

[Harmony Blue]

36. +1 Apparently the obvious is lost

but we have to repeat it for it to sink in.

[cali]

42. funny how the Labour Party is outraged about it.

but YOU of course are just so much better informed than high ranking Labour pols.

[Harmony Blue]

95. Well that isn't far from the truth

with today's technology. The hard part is finding the truth in a sea of misinformation.

[ProSense]

123. Greenwald: Brazil’s Intervention Likely Kept Partner from Being Charged Under UK Terrorism Law

Greenwald: Brazil’s Intervention Likely Kept Partner from Being Charged Under UK Terrorism Law
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023490634

I previously assumed that maybe they didn't want to arrest him: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023489324#post34

There is your answer, according to Greenwald.

[fasttense]

30. You do NOT know those documents were stolen.

You assume they are.

They could be nothing more than lists or opinions of Snowden.

But of course anything anti-NSA or anti-NSA corporate contractors you immediately post about.

I bet the NSA and their corporate conspirators just loves you to death for supporting them so whole heartedly.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

40. You should clearly state in your post that this is nothing more than your opinion.

Yes, the claim is ridiculous, but you should make clear that it's your opinion, lest people begin to think you're a propagandist or something.

[Coyotl]

41. When did you see the docs?

And how do you know they were stolen?

[hobbit709]

44. More lame BS on a subject of which you know nothing.

[DesMoinesDem]

46. Obvious trolling is obvious.

[The Magistrate]

52. You Are, Of Course, Sir, Referring To Your Own Comment, When You Speak Of Obvious Trolling...?

"Enquiring minds want to know!"

[one_voice]

58. Says someone...

who has 4 of 7 hidden posts directed at one poster. The same one this is directed at.

Maybe that's stalking....

[hobbit709]

66. And you just happened to look this up?

[one_voice]

71. Yeah, I looked at their...

profile.

Why would it matter if I looked at his/her profile? Isn't that why we have profile? To look at?

His transparency is open for all to see. Apparently they're not a very nice person.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=270145&sub=trans

I find it curious that you have a problem with me looking at DesMoines profile and commenting on what's there.

[hobbit709]

72. The irony of it all.

[DesMoinesDem]

75. Yep, I'm a thorn in the side of the propaganda machine.

[one_voice]

79. You're not a thorn...

a thorn has a good counter argument. You sit on the sidelines saying nana nana boo-boo stick your head in poo-poo.

A thorn has facts and logic. You have name calling and stalking.

[DesMoinesDem]

84. Nope, I'm definitely a thorn calling out the obvious propagandists.

[The Magistrate]

99. As You Said Above, Sir: Obvious Trolling Is Obvious

With your Transparency Page in evidence, it is obvious what you are doing....

[DesMoinesDem]

106. Yep, it is obvious. I'm calling out the propagandists.

[The Magistrate]

108. What Is Obvious, Sir, Is That You Are Being Disruptive, By The Judgement Of The Community

People you are attacking make a valuable contribution here; you do not.

[DesMoinesDem]

112. We'll have to agree, Sir, to disagree, Sir.

And I'll continue, Sir, to call out the propagandists, Sir. If you don't, Sir, like it, Sir, block me, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

113. That The Community Views You As Disruptive And Offensive, Sir, Is A Matter Of Plain Fact

As this link to your Transparency Page makes clear:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=profile&uid=270145&sub=trans

[DesMoinesDem]

118. Nope, it means a few people, Sir, on a jury, Sir,

didn't like, Sir, a couple of my, Sir, posts. I will still keep posting, Sir, regardless of your bullying, Sir. I couldn't care less, Sir, what you, Sir, think of my posts, Sir. I don't expect, Sir, for, Sir, my posts to please everyone, Sir. Especially, Sir, the propagandists I call out, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

122. It Means, Sir, Solid Majorities Among Persons Selected At Random, To Represent The Community

Consider quite a few of your posts to be "disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate."

It takes real work to craft posts that are as obnoxious, derogatory, and offensive as those your Transparency Page displays in quantity.

[DesMoinesDem]

130. You can't please all the people all the time, Sir, Sir, Sir.

Sir, Sir, Sir, My OPs on average get far more Recs than ProSense, Sir, Sir, Sir. That says to me, Sir, Sir, Sir, that more people appreciate what I post than what ProSense is offering, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir. ProSense's OPs usually have a low number of Recs and a high number of posts, telltale signs of trolling Sir, Sir, Sir.

But thank you for drawing attention to my transparency page, Sir, Sir, Sir. Those posts were hidden far too soon, Sir, Sir, Sir, and deserve to be seen, Sir, Sir, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

131. Always Fun To Fight A Fella Leads With His Face, Sir

You could give tips to the Black Knight....

[DesMoinesDem]

132. Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir, Sir

[MADem]

168. Ha ha ha! Love that film clip!

Loved your rejoinder, as well. You should give lessons!

[whatchamacallit]

48. You'll drive any stagecoach off the cliff

won't ya?

[SidDithers]

51. DU rec...nt

Sid

[AZ Progressive]

64. Oh great, More Propaganda from NonSense

"Because everyone should just trust President Obama like I do!"

"If you don't support the government you are Anti-American!"

Blindly support the government even though the government is not defending the constitution and disregarding it?


It seems that NonSense puts the president above the interests of the country and the people.

[ProSense]

76. "Propaganda from NonSense...It seems that NonSense"

Your cleverness is amazing. Did you come up with that all by yourself?

[ocpagu]

81. Nope.

You certainly have helped.

[ProSense]

97. Who are you, and

why do you hate facts?

[ocpagu]

104. I'm a DUer.

I don't hate facts.

[Puzzledtraveller]

73. Would you have posted all that you have if there was a President Romney in office

or a Mccain?

[ProSense]

77. No. Now what? Why are you upset that I posted it? n/t

[Puzzledtraveller]

80. So you admit that if there was a President Romney or Mccain

you would not have been posting all that you have in defense of the adminstration over the NSA revelations. That's all I needed to know, thank you for answering the question.

To answer yours, I am not upset.

[Marr]

88. I'm amazed you got such a frank and succinct answer there.

And it really does sort of cancel out everything else this person posts.

[ProSense]

96. LOL!

"And it really does sort of cancel out everything else this person posts."

You mean that was the goal?

Who knew?

[Puzzledtraveller]

100. I agree Marr

I think it's a valid point when considering their sincerity. I was surprised they answered it too.

[EOTE]

164. So you're merely defending this bullshit because it's a democrat doing it?

I've known that's the case for a rather long time, but it IS rather refreshing to see you actually admit it.

[ProSense]

190. No,

"So you're merely defending this bullshit because it's a democrat doing it?"

...I'm saying that the information is being hyped as something it's not. I'll repeat what I posted here (http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023496530)

...I opposed Bush's illegal spying. Bush is a liar. He bypassed the FISA court and actually eavesdropped on Americans. I think Republicans are liars so it's not unreasonable for me to admit that I "wouldnt be making these posts if a republican was in office."

You might not be worried about President Barack Obama abusing the immense surveillance powers of the U.S. government, but what if someone like Sarah Palin gets elected?

That is the argument Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL) gave in support of his legislation to rein in the National Security Agency during a recent interview with Los Angeles activist Lauren Steiner.

“I heard Rush Limbaugh ranting almost incoherently about this just a few days ago on the radio,” the congressman said. “He is very concerned about the fact that ‘Dictator Obama’ can get this information. I’m more concerned about the possibility that Dictator Palin can get this information, but regardless of who we are concerned about, the fact is we are both concerned.”

Rep. Alan Grayson on NSA SPYING: What if ‘DICTATOR PALIN’ GETS ELECTED?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023432337

What's interesting about the most recent release is that the one incident that wasn't reported to Congress happened during the Bush administration, and it was reported to Congress by the Obama administration.

On the NSA, this is what happens when reports conflate the Bush and Obama administrations.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023471576

I can't make a similar correlation. I mean, the notion that the ideal progressive President wouldn't be questioned about the scope of surveillance is a hypothetical for which there is no basis for comparison in this country.

Snowden and Venezuela: My bizarre experience in the surveillance state

In 2009, a private call placed from the US by Isabel Lara to her mother was broadcast on Venezuelan state TV. Secretly taped calls are routinely used there to disgrace political enemies—or worse. To locals, the South American surveillance state is an odd place for government transparency advocate and NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden to end up.

Edward Snowden is heading to Venezuela? Seriously?

The Venezuelan government's offer of "humanitarian asylum" to Edward Snowden rang hollow to most Venezuelans, who are by now used to the government spying on opposition leaders, journalists and even their own loyalists. Not only does the government routinely record their phone conversations, it broadcasts them on government-owned TV channels.

The news that the NSA leaker has been offered asylum in Venezuela seems especially ironic to my mother and me. A few years ago, we had the bizarre experience of hearing one of our private phone calls aired on Venezuelan TV. It was played over and over again and "analyzed" by pro-government talk show host Mario Silva—a man who is now in disgrace himself because, in a weird twist of fate, a recording of him was leaked and broadcast on TV.

What was most surreal about our experience was that there was no excuse or justification for taping our phone conversation. None was needed. The government just had it.

- more -

http://boingboing.net/2013/07/08/snowden-and-venezuela-my-biza.html

[EOTE]

192. You said you wouldn't have posted your OP if Romney were in office rather than Obama.

That seems to me as if you're suggesting that your reaction to this issue depends on the political affiliation of the president in office. I really don't see how to read that any other way.

[ProSense]

193. Yes, see my previous comment. n/t

[Marr]

204. You squirt out links like an octopus squirts ink.

Sorry, but anyone can read your very succinct admission above that you would not be defending these policies if a Republican was in office. Posting a ton of links and quotes and urges to go elsewhere isn't going to hide it.

[Rex]

85. Nice speculation, I guess that could be true.

Germany would have detained him if that was the case, but who knows - not like you do or I do. Of course the UK would have arrested Miranda if there was something there, they had 9 hours. Some of the speculation is LOL funny and some of it seems dead on target.

[Marr]

86. I guess there really is nothing you won't defend. /nt

[SwissTony]

87. Can i ask a (probably) silly question?

Greenwald and Miranda knew there could be trouble somewhere along the line to Berlin. So, why carry potentially incriminating files on DVDs and/or thumb drives? (Please note: I'm not saying he did or did not. I have seen no evidence either way).

Why not just email them? Get a friend to set up an anonymous email account and Miranda could mail the files from that account to the same account. Greenwald could then login to the same account and download the files.

Ok, there might be problems with file size limits - split and recombine. Get a high school student and give him/her 50 Euros.

Time to load and upload? Yep. But flying from Rio to Berlin isn't something you do in a couple of hours. The files would have been in Berlin before Miranda - even without his detainment.

Could the NSA have detected and stopped the transfer? It might have gone through before the became aware of any "problems".

[ProSense]

98. You'd have to

"Greenwald and Miranda knew there could be trouble somewhere along the line to Berlin. So, why carry potentially incriminating files on DVDs and/or thumb drives? (Please note: I'm not saying he did or did not. I have seen no evidence either way). "

...ask Greenwald that question, and he acknowledged the information was in Miranda's possession: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023490162

[SwissTony]

102. Yeah, but the reports coming out are contradictory.

Some people are saying other people are putting words in GG's mouth.

But that doesn't answer my question as to why they didn't transfer the files through an anonymous third-party email account.

[randome]

105. But then they'd have to kill the high school student, torch their digs and send out body doubles.

Too much trouble.

I'm betting the time to transfer, even if parsed out in smaller chunks, would have alerted German authorities, who would then step in. But who really knows at this point?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Don't ever underestimate the long-term effects of a good night's sleep.[/center][/font][hr]

[SwissTony]

107. Having your partner detained for 9 hours

and having much of his equipment confiscated (hopefully temporarily) is too much trouble.

And it's not even time to transfer as it's email account to same email account. Upload in Brazil, download in Germany or wherever. and how many big downloads are going on in Germany? Heaps. We have fast internet in Europe (I live in Holland). My daughter can download high quality movies any time she likes.

[Matariki]

101. Ah, the talking points have been distributed.

[ProSense]

110. What are they? n/t

[The Magistrate]

115. A List Of Things To Say, Ma'am, Like Calling What People Who Disagree With You Say 'Talking Points'

One list evidently in circulation suggests calling opponents 'authoritarians' or saying they are 'paid to post', and a variety of similar duckspeak noises.

[Katashi_itto]

125. Ahh good to see OP is busy in service to the Homeland corporate state

Glory to the Homeland! Homeland can do nothing wrong!

[PowerToThePeople]

116. Straight to the trashcan with this OP. n/t

[ProSense]

119. But first, let me post an anouncement. n/t

[brisas2k]

129. It is important at this juncture to listen

[HooptieWagon]

135. Wow, you apologists are really grasping at straws!

It sounds like you're defending Iran, N Korea, or the old Soviet Union.
Fact: You don't know the content of alleged "documents", nor whether they were "stolen".
Fact: Laws exist to aid in recovering "stolen" property. It is not necessary to employ an anti-terrorism law to do so.
Fact: If the Guardian pays for Miranda's ticket, that doesn't mean he's an employee.

You people are getting desparate in your defense of actions reserved for totalitarian states. Says a lot about you.

[tridim]

142. You forgot Hitler's Nazis Hooptie.

And Satan.

[Cha]

138. "MLK had a dream.." Tweets regarding GG's hype

Imani ABL @AngryBlackLady

Martin Luther King had a dream that people thought to have secret documents could travel freely in and out of Heathrow.

#DudeBroInitiative9:14 AM - 18 Aug 2013
46 Retweets 17 favorites Reply

Justin Green @JGreenDC

Apparently it's now a police state if you aren't allowed to freely carry around stolen classified documents #thanksobama3:27 PM - 18 Aug 2013

Bob Cesca @bobcesca_go

Why did Greenwald/Guardian claim Miranda was an innocent spouse, when he was hired to transport top secret documents? http://thedailybanter.com/2013/08/glenn-greenwalds-partner-detained-by-british-security-was-transporting-top-secret-documents/
…5:54 PM - 18

Aug 2013
74 Retweets 13 favorites Reply

I have an answer for that last one.. because that's what GG bloody well does.. Hypemonger.

http://theobamadiary.com/

[MrMickeysMom]

147. "David Miranda was employed as a messenger to carry..."

... my message of this hour ... (3... 2... 1...)

Everyone should just trust President Obama like I do!

If you don't support the government you are Anti-American!

Blindly support the government even though the government is not defending the constitution and disregarding it?

[Incitatus]

149. Do you need some knee pads? nt

[Enrique]

151. is this an objective assessment?

do you have any biases you would like to share with us?

[JEB]

153. Some posters here on this very site may be employed

to carry messages for the repressive corporate owned state.

[Vinnie From Indy]

154. I guess as you see it, the Guardian, the NYT and the WaPo

should all have their reporters detained at Heathrow as well. Those entities not only have "stolen" documents, they printed excerpts and distributed it to tens of millions of people. Why are their reporters not stopped in transit?

[TBF]

171. .....

[bowens43]

178. blah blah blah blah blah etc ...give it a rest.

[TomClash]

179. Flawed analogy

The documents are not jewelry. They belong to the People, not MI5, MI6 or the Tory Government.

Anyway, no matter. I'm sure there are copies of the documents in several locations.

[ProSense]

189. Nothing wrong with the analogy

"The documents are not jewelry. They belong to the People, not MI5, MI6 or the Tory Government. "

There is such a thing as classified information, and leaking it is a crime, as I point out in this post:

The ACLU and others have been trying to redefine the term whistleblower to include Snowden.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023496530

[TomClash]

206. Of course it is flawed

Jewelry does not belong to the public and does not impact the people's right to know what their government is doing.

[ProSense]

210. I think

"Jewelry does not belong to the public and does not impact the people's right to know what their government is doing. "

...you're missing the point. Intentionally?

“I think it’s very surprising to accuse somebody of espionage who hasn’t worked for a foreign government, who didn’t covertly pass information to an adversary-enemy of the United States, who didn’t sell any top secret information, who simply went to newspapers, asked newspapers to very carefully vet the information to make sure that the only thing being published are things that inform his fellow citizens but doesn’t harm national security," Greenwald said in a phone interview. "That is not espionage in any real sense of the word.”

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023068613

Maybe you should inform Greenwald it's "the people's right to know."

Then again, this is the same guy who said:

The U.S. government should be on your knees every day praying that nothing happens to Snowden, because if something happens, all information will be revealed and that would be their worst nightmare.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023244823

[TomClash]

223. You miss the point, not me

The government frequently misclassifies information intentionally. No one is talking about nuclear launch codes. The people have a right to know information that they pay for. Your friends are withholding it, even from most elected representatives.

[Logical]

181. Nonsense......

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3488686

[ProSense]

191. Your rebuttal is a cartoon?

OK

[Logical]

207. Most your OPs are a joke, what is the difference?

[ProSense]

208. You're not obsessed with the cartoonist?

That's one.

[Logical]

211. If hte cartoonist posted 10 cartoons about the same fucking topic....

Every fucking day I would call them out also! But of course no one is that obsessed with Snowden, except you!

LOL!

[ProSense]

212. Yeah,

"If hte cartoonist posted 10 cartoons about the same fucking topic....Every fucking day I would call them out also! But of course no one is that obsessed with Snowden, except you! "

...I know, you'd be the cartoonist around the board.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023485812#post28
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023393947#post3

[AverageJoe90]

222. Good post. n/t