Greenwald told the New York Times Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden

[Egnever]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-security-snowden-guardian-idUSBRE97I10E20130819

Greenwald told the New York Times that Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden to Poitras and to acquire from Poitras a different set of materials for delivery to Greenwald, who lives with Miranda near Rio de Janeiro.

Greenwald said British authorities seized all electronic media, including data memory sticks, which Miranda was carrying. But Greenwald told the Forbes website that "everything" Miranda had "was heavily encrypted."

[hrmjustin]

1. My question is why did they use a terrorist law to stop and detain him. They knew he was no

terrorist.

[morningfog]

3. That is THE only question that really matters.

[hrmjustin]

4. Her Majesty's Government needs to account for their actions on this.

If they have evidence that is incriminating then they need to present it. If not then this looks like a bullying tactic.

[Egnever]

5. Cause it allowed them to do so

Pretty simple really.

[hrmjustin]

7. But the UK Law says they had to suspect terrorism to detain him. They did not suspect he

was a terrorist. I do not know if the same law allowed them to take his stuff. I don't know UK law very well.

[Egnever]

8. I think you need to read the law again

it says no such thing.

[hrmjustin]

9. I was under the impression from the news that it was a terroism law they used to detain him.

[Egnever]

10. Heres the part they likely used to justify it.

Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.

Although I think you could make a case for C and D as well

[hrmjustin]

13. Thank you for posting that. I am not familiar with UK law.

[Egnever]

14. Np

Most of us aren't.

I actually think the law is terrible. But that doesn't take away from the fact that it is the law and they could and did use it correctly.

[hrmjustin]

16. The law is very broadly written. You can use it to justify almost anything.

[Egnever]

20. Yup

I think it is a horrible law, but it is the law and there is no requirement in it of you being a terrorist for them to detain you and confiscate your stuff.

[HangOnKids]

25. It is the law!!!!

You are just cracking me up. What a magic pony dance.

[Egnever]

30. Do you ever post anything but drivel?

[HangOnKids]

33. Must be good drivel because you replied to it

have a good say and all that!

[Egnever]

38. So that would be a no

Got it.

[HangOnKids]

42. Sorry you replied

your NO to replying to drive is moot. Thanks for playing.

[Egnever]

51. NP you keep kicking my post I keep replying :)

No matter the drivel quotient of your posts

[DevonRex]

69. Not just that...

According to Der Spiegel, Snowden gave them the names of people working at NSA. Der Spiegel said publishing those names would endanger the lives of those people working at NSA.. The UK has people working at NSA facilities worldwide.

In addition, Snowden claimed to have the names of CIA clandestine ops and locations of CIA stations. MI6 clandestine ops use those stations. The exposure of the CIA/MI6 AQAP operative, for example, was definitely something that endangered not only the op's life but the public's lives. If the UK thought Snowden had any similar info that went to Poitras (perhaps from someone at Der Spiegel) and then to Miranda to give to Greenwald to publish, the UK had reason to stop Miranda.

The UK and USA are joined as far as intelligence and covert ops go.

Greenwald and his husband are playing with fire. I've been saying this from the beginning.

[Egnever]

70. Agreed

There is a reason most of our government officials are calling Snowden a traitor, and it isn't cause they are collecting meta data on phone calls.

[DevonRex]

71. +1.

You know, you can fly straight to South America from Hawaii. A trip to any country in SA causes less concern to intelligence agencies than a trip to Hong Kong, given its governance - actual governance as opposed to the way Hong Kong prefers to be seen.

Snowden's excuse for flying there instead of SA was because of his security clearance. I laughed at that. All he had to do was choose a flight that is never full, go to the airport, buy his ticket and get on the effing airplane. It's not difficult. He chose his destination and his stop along the way for a reason.

Greenwald? Well, let's just say that this latest move either really was a fucked up amateur mistake OR it was designed to make him look like a really stupid amateur. Funny, but I've never thought of Glenn as stupid before. I thought maybe he had bitten off more than he could chew and should be careful. (Don't want the guy to get killed over this by some Russian thugs.)

But now that he's made this rookie move it doesn't feel right. It's either attention-getting for his upcoming book OR it's designed to make him look like he hasn't been working for Snowden's boss all along. Oh wait, these two aren't mutually exclusive. Here we have a win-win. Or a win - avoiding the worst possible outcome in game theory terms. Mr. Snowden should pay attention.

[joshcryer]

15. Correct.

[morningfog]

2. I doubt they got anything useful or even criminal.

The documents from Poitras to go to Greenwald is not defined. It may not have been anything classified at all. If I were them, after delivering Snowden docs to Poitras, I would not carry a copy back with me.

I hope the UK found heavily encrypted pictures of Greenwald's dogs.

[Egnever]

6. I think you are probably right

Cause it was encrypted. Although Mr. Miranda did say he gave them the passwords.

[Bonobo]

11. Ha, bullshit. Even the original NYT piece does not make that claim.

Here is the relevant quote from the NYT article that you CLAIM made that claim. But let's read carefully.


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.


1. Mr. Miranda was in Berlin to deliver documents related to Mr. Greenwald’s investigation into government surveillance to Ms. Poitras, Mr. Greenwald said.
= That means that Greenwald said the documents related to his investigation.

2. Those documents, which were stored on encrypted thumb drives, were confiscated by airport security, Mr. Greenwald said.
= That means Greenwald said the documents were confiscated and on encrypted thumb drives.

3. All of the documents came from the trove of materials provided to the two journalists by Mr. Snowden.
= That means that it is an unsubstantiated claim and the author does NOT attribute it to Snowden.

[Union Scribe]

21. Thank you

for your attempts to clear this up for people. I saw this going on last night and as much as I wanted to correct it, I wondered if it was really being done here as a matter of wishful reading or taking advantage of strange quote nesting by the Times.

[Egnever]

26. Clear what up?

There is no clear in this mess. There are lots of people with lots of agendas.

The NYT says this the WAPO says that lots and lots of total misinformation around this story and GG has a long track record of bending the truth but people want to post every article they see and pretend it PROVES!

That is really my main point.

[Egnever]

35. Bullshit back at ya! I didnt claim they made that claim Reuters did

Think link is there take a look yourself.

Here I will make it easy for you. It's the same article that made the claim a US official said we OK'd the detainment. That one of your buds is touting as gubment bad!!!


http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/19/us-usa-security-snowden-guardian-idUSBRE97I10E20130819


Take it up with Reuters if you dont like it.

[bemildred]

12. He denies it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023492471#post12

[Egnever]

17. Of course he does

He also said Mr Miranda was just an innocent family member.

Which is also complete hogwash

[bemildred]

19. So he would lie, but not the the NYT? He would eager to tell them what was on the drives? nt

[Egnever]

23. Plenty of lies all around this story

That is really my point. Anyone who buys GG's BS without questioning it is a foll same for any media story. Make your mind up after careful research not cause some media idiot tells you it is true.

[bemildred]

24. Right, so I don't believe he told them what was on the drives.

It's encrypted, you don't tell people who took it from you what it is. That could help them crack it. Esp. if they have cleartext. Eh?

[Egnever]

27. He didnt make that statement to the UK government

he made it to the NYT.

They are not the same thing. So saying "you don't tell the people that took it from you what it is" does not apply.

[bemildred]

31. No shit. That must be why the NYT published it, and not the UK government. nt

[Egnever]

40. So then why make the stupid statement?

you don't tell people who took it from you what it is.

[bemildred]

45. Ah, thank you. nt

[Cha]

49. Lol.. greenwald denies what he said.. his MO.

Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka

Sunday: GG says Miranda was detained without a lawyer. Monday: GG lied. A lawyer was offered. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/david-miranda-interview-detention-heathrow … pic.twitter.com/rvh2dNNv97

11:01 AM - 19 Aug 2013


http://theobamadiary.com/2013/08/19/a-good-sport-august-2013-edition/

Imani ABL @AngryBlackLady

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

9:14 AM - 18 Aug 2013
47 Retweets 18 favorites

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/ …

[Egnever]

54. Holly cow does this dude ever tell the truth?

[Cha]

66. I could google it and see

if anything comes up.

Nope just more "spn and lies"..

"Greenwald spins and lies again: Partner was actually detained for carrying stolen classified docs"

GGreenwald even spun the incident as some kind of U.S. government conspiracy:

"But the UK puppets and their owners in the US national security state obviously are unconstrained by even those minimal scruples.
reenwald even spun the incident as some kind of U.S. government conspiracy:"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/08/19/1232181/-Greenwald-spins-and-lies-again-Partner-was-actually-detained-for-carrying-stolen-classified-docs#

Mr "spin and lies" is the one who has no "scruples" or "ethics"..like "even the "mafia ".

Nerdy Wonka @NerdyWonka

Shorter White House: Yes, we got a heads up Miranda was going to be detained. Don't smuggle stolen NSA docs. *Shrug* pic.twitter.com/QEhKYmx6Bw

8:40 AM - 19 Aug 2013



http://theobamadiary.com/2013/08/19/chat-away-213/#comments

[Egnever]

68. Much love cha

I was thinking about this tool and kept thinking I remembered him from back in the primaries but couldn't place it.

Then it hit me, He was part of the puma crowd!

So like you I googled it and our old friend ClarkUSA popped right up.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x700586

Explains a lot don't ya think?

[joshcryer]

18. That's a really weak denial.

Probably doesn't want to insult Savage for interpreting what was said the way he did. I personally trust Savage over GG. It explains why Savage worded what he wrote that way, though. Greenwald didn't explicitly say that he had the files but it was implied.

[bemildred]

29. He says: "The NYT got that wrong - I never told them what he was carrying

- only that our work was about Snowden/NSA"

That agrees with what he said in the three quotes attributed statements we have:

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.

The sentence which identifies them as Snowden's is not attributed to Greenwald and he denies it. I'm sure it's recorded somewhere, but pending that, I have to go with the orignal source.

[joshcryer]

36. "Imply" means, literally, saying something without saying it.

I said he could've implied that's what the files were. Savage reported an implication as a fact though which would be wrong but since he knew there would be a denial of such a thing I don't see him retracting it or correcting the article.

[bemildred]

39. He denies it. What the reporter thinks he implied is the reporters problem. nt

[joshcryer]

41. Since the article isn't corrected, I don't think he has a problem.

[bemildred]

47. Maybe they will get around to it. nt

[Egnever]

60. And maybe just maybe

GG is a freaking liar!

[bemildred]

61. Yep, liars and blowhards everywhere. nt

[leftstreet]

22. It could have been artwork for an upcoming book

[Egnever]

28. Well then he would have said that

Don't ya think?

[leftstreet]

37. 'materials' n/t

[Egnever]

43. By that weak ass logic

It is just as likely it was snowdens documents.

[leftstreet]

44. I'm betting it was absolutely nothing

I do understand the point you're making

It's hard to imagine Greenwald wouldn't have considered what could happen here. It wouldn't surprise me to find out it was nothing incriminating

[Egnever]

52. Then why encrypt it?

Or better yet why send it in person rather than just emailing it?

[leftstreet]

58. What if it was related to Poitras, not Snowden?

You know she's been detained before re: her documentaries?

Detained in the U.S.: Filmmaker Laura Poitras Held, Questioned Some 40 Times at U.S. Airports
April 20, 2012

The Academy Award-nominated filmmaker Laura Poitras discusses how she has been repeatedly detained and questioned by federal agents whenever she enters the United States. Poitras said the interrogations began after she began working on her documentary, "My Country, My Country," about post-invasion Iraq.
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/4/20/detained_in_the_us_filmmaker_laura

On August 22, 2012 The New York Times published an Op-doc in a forum of short documentaries produced by independent filmmakers that was produced by Laura Poitras and entitled, The Program.[10] It is preliminary work that will be included in a documentary planned for release in 2013 as the final part of the trilogy. The documentary is based on interviews with William Binney, a 32-year veteran of the National Security Agency, who became a whistleblower and described the details of the Stellar Wind project that he helped to design. He states that the program he worked on had been designed for foreign espionage, but was converted in 2001 to spying on citizens in the United States, prompting concerns by him and others that the actions were illegal and unconstitutional and that led to their disclosures. The subject implies that the facility being built at Bluffdale, Utah is a facility that is part of that domestic surveillance, intended for storage of massive amounts of data collected from a broad range of communications that may be mined readily for intelligence without warrants. Poitras reported that on October 29, 2012 the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that were used to authorize the creation of such facilities and justify such actions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Poitras

[Egnever]

59. So you are now claiming he sent it in person because he new he would get detained?

Or am I missing what you are trying to say.

[leftstreet]

64. LOL no. I'm wondering if it was a cock-up

A stupendous near-coincidence

Poitras seems threatening enough to the status quo, and obviously gets tracked, without the Snowden/Greenwald connection

I'm wondering if Miranda would have been detained returning home after a vacation in Italy, rather than returning from visiting Ms Poitras

[cthulu2016]

32. Is there a NYT link?

It is swell that Reuters says he told the NYT something, but it is rather weird to provide a Reuters link to something that is supposed to be from the NYT.

Is there a NYT link?

(Sincere question, since I have no idea what the NYT wrote on the topic.)

[Egnever]

48. I dont know for sure

There is a NYT article that says this..

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/19/world/europe/britain-detains-partner-of-reporter-tied-to-leaks.html?_r=1&

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.

But I have no way of knowing if that's what they base their statment on for sure.

[cthulu2016]

65. thanks

[bemildred]

56. Try this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014569605

The original source seems to be this:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/18/glenn-greenwald-guardian-partner-detained-heathrow

Later stories add things and rehash.

[Thinkingabout]

34. If the information was stolen information and in some places if you are in possession of stolen

property the property can be seized and the person who has the stolen property can be charged. I do not know if the UK has similar laws but Miranda sure did not have clean hands.

[cthulu2016]

46. But you are probably in possession of stolen property

If you have read any stories online about the NSA leaks then you are most likely as much in possession of "stolen property" as Miranda was. (Unless you are fanatical about clearing temporary internet file caches and over-writing the data)

Every copy of the Guardian would be the same "stolen property." Every copy of every newspaper that discussed what the Guardian published would be stolen property.

Every computer that was used to read a Guardian article, or even read an article about a Guardian article contains stolen property.

And so on.

Would publishing the "stolen property" somehow make it un-stolen?

[Egnever]

50. No sorry but no

All of the information is not public knowledge yet. There is more that has not been released yet. Acording to GG much more and much more explosive

[Thinkingabout]

55. I also said I was going to win the lottery but I haven't.

[Egnever]

57. LOL

Well I agree with that completely This GG dude cant seem to keep a story straight from one day to the next so who knows.

However Given that the government seems pretty serious about it and what has been released so far has been pretty tame once you get past the hype. I am going to have to believe he has more. It may just be legitimate intel stuff that would hurt US operations but that wouldn't make it any less damaging.

[cthulu2016]

62. Are you suggesting that

"stolen property" (the topic of the post you are replying to) becomes un-stolen based on public knowledge of it?

I was pointing out that the whole "recovering stolen property" angle is not apt because the trouble with the information is not that it was stolen, but that it is classified.

And publishing classified information does not de-classify it.

[Thinkingabout]

53. you must have lost your way

[grasswire]

63. NOTE: Greenwald did not say that the materials from Poitras...

....picked up by Miranda were documents downloaded by Snowden.

"...Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden to Poitras and to acquire from Poitras a different set of materials for delivery to Greenwald, who lives with Miranda near Rio de Janero."


There is zero indication what that "different set of materials" is.

[freshwest]

67. The headline explains everything that happened to those who live in the real world:

Greenwald told the New York Times Miranda went to Berlin to deliver materials downloaded by Snowden

In other words:

Greenwald announced publicly that Miranda was transporting files which everyone knew were stolen through the UK. Greenwald has bragged about the theft and his possession of the files and intent to create chaos for a long time.

Miranda is most likely not incompetent or kept in the dark about what part his partner wanted him to play. It is not logical to claim he is innocent by stupidity.

After it was announced that Miranda would be transporting admittedly stolen files through the UK, the outcome was so predictable that his being detained was clearly a staged publicity event. Unless people want to claim that Greenwald, Miranda and Snowden are a gang of dummies?

There is no mystery here, Greenwald engineered this event by himself, and knew that Brazil had to protect their citizen, and he knew Miranda would come to no harm. Even though Greenwald has been accused of abusing the trust of friends before who did not forgive him for it in the past.

And we like many others just swallowed another media circus designed to keep our minds off of something much more important to our lives than this tawdry show.

Our focus needs to be on electing, as Grayson says, enough people to change the laws.

[Bonobo]

72. Errr, no. He didn't. nt

[Egnever]

73. Rueters disagrees with you

Maybe you should take your editorial skills and take it up with them.

[Bonobo]

74. The difference between reading critically...

and being unable to do so.

That's the real issue here.

[Egnever]

75. Totaly agree

Finally!