I can't believe that Greenwald would do

[jazzimov]

such a nasty thing!

Regardless of what you may think of him, he used - USED, dammit! - his lover, his most precious person in the world, to transport stolen documents for him.

No matter what your view is on this matter, you know that the British Government would have been all over whoever carried these on their person. So Greenwald had his declared most beloved person in the whole wide world carry them for him.

This is the coward that so many people call "hero". I spit on the ground he walks on.

I'll say it again: I spit on the ground this COWARD walks on!

If you want to talk about the NSA regulations, I am more than happy to talk about them.

If you want to talk about Greenwald - FUCK HIM!

[grasswire]

1. there you go again... nt

[jazzimov]

2. Yes, and I will again and again

you simply do NOT treat someone you LOVE like that!

Unless you don't.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

27. Now that's some poutrage you have worked up there.

Do you believe any of it, or is this BS just to inspire the Reagan Democrats?

[jazzimov]

38. "Reagan Democrats"?

Despite your username (which I quite like, BTW),

pot, meet kettle....

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

42. Oh, go on now. Do tell.

I'm not using the dog whistle nonsense. You have.

Lover.

Keep it up. You're very amusing.

[cali]

139. what a contemptlble claim.

As if the likes of YOU has any knowledge about their relationship.

Your op and comments are shameful.

[delrem]

3. troll alert!

[jazzimov]

37. why? nt

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Greenwald stole nothing.

He's a member of the Press.

Materials were leaked to him, as a member of the Press.

So these are now his work materials.

[delrem]

12. Both Poitras and Greenwald have the entire material.

My guess is that Miranda was conveying Greenwald's notes, perhaps strategy.
The OP is total calumny, neither proven nor likely.
It is also, by far, the most despicable OP I've seen re. this issue, and that's saying something.

[Raksha]

65. Yup, fake outrage worthy of a Republican, or even a teabagger.

I smell troll.

[jazzimov]

41. "member of the press"

And I'm sure he doesn't know how to recognize stolen material. Especially when it's presented to him as such.

If he didn't know it was so "hot", why would he go to such great lengths to hide it?

Or was this just another of your infamous "3rd Way Manny" posts?

[MannyGoldstein]

47. And how would you define a "member of the press"?

Among other things, Greenwald writes for an internationally-respected newspaper.

[Summer Hathaway]

69. And which internationally-respected newspaper

does Miranda write for?

[MannyGoldstein]

71. Once Greenwald takes ownership it's public domain

it's reduced to being his work materials.

[Summer Hathaway]

72. So that makes David Miranda

a journalist?

[MannyGoldstein]

73. Should we put people in jail for reading Greenwald's writing?

If he writes about classified material, and you read it... should you be arrested for posessing stolen info? if not, why not?

[olddots]

63. BORE ALERT !!!!!!!

[myrna minx]

83. Are you outraged that the Pentagon Papers were revealed

or that Woodward and Bernstein met with Mark Felt to expose Watergate? Should the families of Woodward and Bernstein be subject to harrassment based upon the professions of their spouses/fathers? In addition, Miranda is the spouse of Greenwald. Do you refer to Mrs Obama as the President's lover or girlfriend?

[pnwmom]

67. He stole nothing. But he did not acquire legal ownership of the materials

simply because the person who stole them, Ed Snowden, passed them on to him. And that means Greenwald asked his partner to carry stolen property.

[MannyGoldstein]

74. Should *you* be in jail now?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=3503272

[EOTE]

84. Don't expect any honest answer from the pro-authoritarians.

Just more of their dog whistles and outrage. They'll also claim to be interested in a discussion on the NSA, but they'll always bring the discussion back to Greenwald and how awful a person he is.

[pnwmom]

150. In the US, the freedom of the press is protected by the Constitution, unlike in the UK.

[reusrename]

181. How do you know what they were transporting?

Your argument doesn't make any sense at all. How can you not notice?

Why would Greenwald need someone to bring him stuff he already has?

It's an idiotic premise, right up there with the whole notion that jet planes can fly without fuel.

[NuclearDem]

5. I heard he eats kittens too.

[Wilms]

10. So did I. What's more, I believe it.

Why does everyone think the spooks are creepy when, in fact, it's people like Greenwald and Snowden who are of such questionable moral character?

[LondonReign2]

118. And Greenwald's and Snowden's character

are paramount -- PARAMOUNT, I SAY! -- to determining to what extent the NSA has violated the Constitution. Why, if they are not of the highest moral character it is safe to assume the NSA is operating just fine, thank you!

[NYC_SKP]

6. Miranda is a big boy. Unless these were planted on him, then I don't see a problem.

Willful participant.

What's the big problem?

[jazzimov]

19. Greenwald.

If Miranda was a "big boy" as you say, then this wasn't a "big deal". Yet, Greenwald decided to MAKE it a big deal. He set it up, and he set up his BOYFRIEND.

[LearningCurve]

23. What if it was the boyfriend that insisted on helping?

People I've dated are often the first ones to offer me help.

[jazzimov]

33. And you didn't stop them? nt

[LearningCurve]

39. Sometimes yes, sometimes no

Case by case basis, but I was always grateful when help was offered.

[jazzimov]

43. Good on you!

But I'm guessing you also gave them the lowdown on what happened if they were caught. I'm also guessing you didn't try to make a big deal out of it.

If he was complicit and got caught, then it's not as big a deal as Greenwald and others are trying to make of it.

[LearningCurve]

50. I think you may have misunderstood

I wasn't trying to suggest I'd ever been involved with anything like trying to get documents past a government checkpoint. My life is a bit more mundane. The things I'm referring to fell more into the category of unpleasant or undesirable. But yes, in that context, I did explain the possible hazards.

[Luminous Animal]

64. Not his BOYFRIEND. His spouse. They are partners and in it together.

The ignorance. It burns.

[EOTE]

86. "Set up"? I'm fairly sure you don't know what that means.

Of course, it's become fairly common place for the Greenwald attack dogs to spew out tons of shit while having no idea of what they're talking.

[snooper2]

148. Miranda didn't have any idea what he had on him-

He said so himself. He picked up materials from Laura and was to bring them back to Greeny---


It's like an episode of "Locked Up Abroad"

Except instead of cocaine he had classified documents LOL

[Douglas Carpenter]

7. and who was taking care of their eleven rescue dogs back Rio?

[jazzimov]

31. Good question!

Who was taking care of those poor puppies?

[HangOnKids]

48. Maybe you should fly down there and check into it n/t

[Smarmie Doofus]

81. Why.... on earth...would *that* be relevant?

Seriously: I've been trying to follow your logic since OP.

[HangOnKids]

153. Attacking Greenwald's Animals Is Now Fair Game

It appears to be a new low.

[Wilms]

8. I guess you don't think Miranda offered to do it.

Well, that is your choice, and another opportunity to defend oppressors by deflecting attention from the central issues. Carry on, though.

[jazzimov]

15. I don't care if he did

if I truly loved him, I would have stopped him.

But I agree that this is a deflection from the central issues.

We should be talking about changing the laws.....

[Wilms]

18. OK. That's you.

And you aren't either of them. And furthermore, our discussion may be subject to NSA recording and monitoring. How do you feel about that?

[jazzimov]

21. Actually, it's not. Or did you not read the so-called "leaks"?

But, there are several bills that have been proposed that I support.

How about you?

[Wilms]

35. And you're sure of that??

The "leaks" have just begun. Clapper lied. And you dismiss the possibility we're having rights trounced?

[hrmjustin]

46. Are you claiming he does not truly love him?

[HangOnKids]

51. It appears that way n/t

[tkmorris]

75. If you truly loved him you'd let him decide for himself

Control freaks are passe.

And, "We should be talking about changing the laws...". Yes. Yes we should. But that isn't the thread you started now is it?

[EOTE]

88. The hypocrisy is mind-numbing.

The OP makes an unbelievably stupid post attacking Greenwald and throwing out dog whistles I thought would only appeal to fundies. Then, when he's called out on his bullshit, he claims that we should be talking about changing the laws. The Greenwald attack dogs want nothing more than for the laws to remain as they are. The hypocrisy is just unbelievable.

[EOTE]

87. "We should be talking about changing the laws...."

Yet you insist on attacking the man, throwing out really ignorant dog whistles and deflecting ANY conversation regarding changing the laws. Kind of hilarious that you'd mention that.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

9. A flair for drama I did not know you possessed. Nicely done!

I happen to completely disagree with you, but I loved the presentation.

[TeeYiYi]

57. Be sure...

...not to miss the CAPS and scare quotes in post 19.

TYY

[uponit7771]

11. AMEN! Greenwald is an asshole, a basher asshole from the start

[HangOnKids]

154. Amen?

Invoking a prayer ending and calling someone an asshole? What class.

[uponit7771]

162. Amen isn't indigenous to prayer ending...real religious shit like that gives Christians a bad name

[HangOnKids]

171. real religious shit?

Who said anything about Christianity?

[Octafish]

195. Never miss an opportunity to denigrate the nation's most popular religion.

Helps to associate Democrats as anti-Christian.

[Arctic Dave]

13. DN alert.

Being a DN is like being a know it all. Everyone else knows it, just not that person.

[jazzimov]

17. I've been following Greenwald for a while

and I've always thought he was an asshole.

I just never thought that even he would stoop this low.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

30. Does he know you are following him?

That's creepy.

[Arctic Dave]

34. Yep. The DN never knows they're a DN.

[Oilwellian]

115. I'm sure...

especially when he was reporting on the Bush Crime Family.

[QC]

14. Would someone please fetch Aunt Pittypat's smelling salts?

[myrna minx]

93. LOL. The swooning concern for his "lover" is heartwarming.

[QC]

97. Isn't it, though?

Do you remember Sprockets on SNL back in the 90s?

Dieter always used to introduce to some person to his guests with, "Thiss iss my lu-vuh."

[stevenleser]

99. It's not noting concern, it's noting an act that is almost sociopathic in its callousness.

Look, either you think the CIA and NSA and MI6 are dangerous and overstepping their bounds or you don't.

You can't have it both ways. If you don't think these organizations are dangerous or overstepping their bounds, then Greenwald did nothing wrong here. But of course, then Greenwald and Snowden lied.

If you think that the intelligence agencies ARE in fact potentially dangerous, than how do you justify someone putting anyone they cared about in the firing line like that?

[myrna minx]

102. Is Miranda a child? Are you privy to their spousal conversations? n/t

[stevenleser]

103. What difference does that make? Would you do that to someone?

Would you send your mother, child or significant other to courier stolen information from one of the worlds top intelligence agencies?

[muriel_volestrangler]

129. There is no indication any of the information was 'stolen'

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Greenwald and Poitras already have all that Snowden obtained. There would be no need to 'courier' any of it between them. However, the journalism and documentaries that each produces might be of interest to the other (for inclusion in either, or for commentary by either, for example). They might also want the other to have a copy in case one of them is arrested at any point, or to have encryption keys for it. This is, especially given the attacks on them by the UK and US governments and their lackeys (yeah, that means you), a wise policy, and completely legal. Since the government you slavishly support is so desperate, and so cavalier with rights of privacy, it's reasonable for someone they both trust to do the travelling. Miranda, after all, has not published any of the data they wanted to hide.

But your authoritarian masters have decided that partners are now 'fair game'.

[myrna minx]

132. Appeal to emotion.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-emotion.html

Conversely, are you ok with a government detaining a mother, child or significant other because their son/father/spouse is a journalist?

I'm not interested in game playing.

[Vinnie From Indy]

133. Since you appear fixated on this question...

one must ask if Miranda WAS in possession of stolen documents! Your question assumes that Greenwald instructed Miranda to carry stolen NSA documents.

This is where it gets really messy for the UK government. If Miranda was carrying stolen documents, why was he not arrested?

[myrna minx]

134. Oh, and my ridicule was based upon the use of "lover" and "boyfriend" in the OP.

People don't refer to married people as boyfriends and lovers. I don't recall seeing anyone refer to VP Joe Biden as Jill Biden's boyfriend or lover. No one refers to Chris Matthews' wife as his girlfriend or lover. That's absurd. That's the point.

I have no doubt that the OP has no actual concern for Miranda, this was just an appeal to emotion fallacy.

[whatchamacallit]

16. And they call Greenwald a "Drama Queen"...

[last1standing]

20. His lover?

What a homophobic piece of bullshit propaganda this OP is.

[jazzimov]

25. I apologize. What term should I have used?

I have also used the term "boyfriend", is that homophobic in your humble opinion? I'll admit that I am straight, but I am not homophobic. If I do not understand the proper terms, I wish to be informed. But all of my Lesbian friends have informed me that "Lover" is an acceptable term. Is it not?

It is widely known that Greenwald is gay and that Miranda is his "partner". I am simply pointing out that I would not allow my partner to take such chances.

[last1standing]

29. The term is "Partner," and talking about Miranda as though he needs protection is just as bad.

They are both human beings who are independent and able to make their own decisions. Your comments are both homophobic and heteronormative. What reason do you have for thinking that Miranda can't take an assignment and carry it out like a fully functioning adult without Greenwald's permission or protection?

The whole OP is disgusting.

[tigervalentine]

52. How old are you? Twelve?

I'll be 72 next month. My best friend is a gay man. I'm a hetero female. The term "partner" to me has a business connotation. "Lover" is lover.

You don't have to be mean. If you're a democrat, you need to look at more than one side of everything you look at. Grow up.

I never post. But you really pissed me off.

[last1standing]

54. Wow! What a load of bullshit you just posted.

You have no clue what I'm talking about so you decide to start spitting insults. If you can't understand modern concepts of gender roles and sexuality, I'd suggest you take a class.

[tigervalentine]

55. But you didn't tell me how old you are

And I really hate pissing matches. But you seem to love them

[last1standing]

56. It's none of your Damned business how old I am.

And trying to force me to tell you seems rather creepy. Do you want me to be 12 years old?

[tigervalentine]

58. Force you?

Guess I don't know my own power.

Goodbye now. I'm done.

[last1standing]

59. I certainly hope you are.

Ick.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

155. You got owned by a lurker who sees you for what you are

Too funny.

[HangOnKids]

159. Those seven hidden posts are too funny too! n/t

[Whisp]

168. +++ ty tiger.

[phleshdef]

173. No, the term is husband.

[last1standing]

174. I looked at Wikipedia to see if they were married and it didn't say.

So I went with partner. If they're married, then yes, "husband" is the correct term.

Either way, "lover" is a way of insinuating that the only reason they're together is for sex. It paints a one dimensional image in the hopes of dehumanizing the target.

[phleshdef]

177. I personally don't like partner either. Boyfriend would be more equitable, if they weren't married.

[pnwmom]

68. "his lover, his most precious person in the world" is not a homophobic insult.

Greenwald's husband is his lover and his partner, just as my husband is my lover and my partner.

[Summer Hathaway]

70. As was pointed out to me by the same poster

in another thread, the term "lover" is a homophobic slur.

And when I pointed out how it was a term used by heterosexuals and homosexuals alike to describe their SOs, their partners, their spouses, etc., I was called a homophobe for saying so.

DU is quickly running out of sharks to be jumped.

[Bluenorthwest]

165. So if FoxNews called Michelle 'the President's lover' that would be dandy fine with you?

That would be accurate, appropriate and in your eyes good protocol and form? Would that apply in any and all contexts or just in print media and casual conversation? Should Republican Congressmen feel free to refer to her as his lover?
Would you use that term to introduce a couple at a party or in the workplace?

Because to me, that term is not for others to be using uninvited, it is a narrow definition of a marriage which highlights the physical and denies the rest. It is too personal to use about others with whom I am not personally very close. I'd never refer to Jill Biden as Joe's lover. In public it would be, in my view, rude and inappropriate.
My point of view is supported by the fact that no one is ever introduced as someone's lover in social settings, nor in the press.
But then again, I had parents and upbringing and a diverse social network so I was raised with some standards around how I speak to and of others. Your own post says you pointed out it is a term people use to describe their own relationships. This is not the same as how others should describe those relationships. Couples call each other 'honey' but that does not mean other people should call them honey. Some minority groups use terms about each other that out of others are extremely insulting. Set, setting, context and intention.
But you know all of that. You just have a second set of rules for folks you don't like. And that is very naff.

[Summer Hathaway]

166. The discussion was not about

whether the term "lover" has an appropriate use in one situation as opposed to another, or is socially acceptable when applied to anyone.

The poster in question insisted that the term "lover" was a homophobic slur - which is ridiculous on its face.

It was not a term I used, BTW - it was used by another poster. When I pointed out that it is word that has nothing to do with being heterosexual or homosexual, I was called a homophobe.

Now that you're finished lecturing me about something that had nothing to do with the discussion, perhaps you can point out to the poster in question that "lover" has nothing to do with ones sexual orientation. If it did, you wouldn't have cited the examples you used re the Obamas or the Bidens - who are both heterosexual couples.

[Bluenorthwest]

167. What has to do with orientation is the two sets of rules you use and the utter lack of response to

any question asked of you, or to any of the points I made. What I said had everything to do with the discussion and you know it which is why you are being evasive and surly instead of simply discussing the subject.
Got any examples of straight spouses being called 'his lover' on DU? Show me those examples and we can talk about the equality in the term. Of course no one calls a wife a lover. It is rude and not appropriate. That's my point. I'm sure you are the only reader who can't quite get it.

[Summer Hathaway]

170. The points you've made are irrelevant

to the discussion that took place.

It was not about whether referring to someone's partner as their "lover" is socially acceptable or politically correct. It was about whether the word, in and of itself, has a homosexual connotation.

Clearly, it does not. If someone referred to Michelle as Obama's "lover", would you think they were implying that Michelle is gay?

Many people find the use of the word "lover" offensive in all kinds of situations - but NOT because it's a homophobic slur, as the poster in question insisted it was.

[Bluenorthwest]

180. You are characterizing the discussion and missing the point so widely I have to assume it is

intentional. Among other things you are now claiming this is all about a post you have yet to link to, instead you want to tell us about it, make a frame and hang that picture.
When you know a couple are spouses, it is rude to call them lovers and with gay couples that can be and often is not just rude but also homophobic. Set and setting, context and intention. Pretending that is not the case and attempting to paint yourself as some wronged individual is just more pretentious self service. Why no link? Because the link would not support your contention, that's why you characterize it. That is also why you refuse to discuss the points I made and instead insist that they are irrelevant.
You keep holding on tight to that point of view you got going on. Tight. Grip. Demand. Declare. Tight.

[Summer Hathaway]

183. Here ya go ...

The exchange starts at Reply #24:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023502157

Again, the points you have made ARE irrelevant to the discussion at hand, a discussion which was confined to whether the word "lover" is a homophobic slur, in and of itself.

[Blue_In_AK]

22. Give it a rest.

[jazzimov]

28. I would be happy to

if others would.

[HangOnKids]

44. Ever driven in a car with three siblings?

This sounds just like that kind of banter.

[burnodo]

24. So Miranda has no ability to make decisions on his own?

That's really pathetic. Making Miranda out to be some dumb infant who had no idea what he "might" be doing.

[jazzimov]

26. If he did make this decision on his own.

why was Greenwald so surprised?

[morningfog]

36. We all should be surprised that anti-terror laws

Were invoked to detain him. Fuck the NSA, and fuck the UK. Nothing else in this matters.

[morningfog]

32. The hate is getting creepy here. Strange post.

Very strange.

[cthulu2016]

60. Yeah, kinda creepy fan fiction feel

[Skittles]

62. very creepy indeed

they just keep sinking lower and lower

[Scootaloo]

131. Rock bottom doesn't slow them down

They just keep smashing their heads against it until the rock breaks

[Rex]

161. Now they are all reccing an idiot blogger that hates Obama

just because he loves to bash Liberals! We have some sick fucking people on this site.

[Marr]

143. Strange is exactly the word. /nt

[dionysus]

40. anybody think he did that knowing exactly what would happen?

he advertised what was going on.. did he think they *wouldn't* detain whoever the courier was? he's not a fool. I think sent the guy there knowing what would happen.

[Cha]

45. I think GG knew exactly what would happen so he

could get all indignant on their asses and let them know the "Mafia" for cris sake has more scruples than they do.

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.

http://www.nytimes.com/...

"Hmmm . . . funny -- I don't see Greenwald mentioning THAT little tidbit in his "outraged" comments earlier, do you? Odd -- to me, using your partner as a mule for illegally transporting stolen, highly-classified documents seems kind of relevant to the story of him being detained by authorities and having his electronics seized, no? And yet Greenwald made no mention of it. Instead, yet another tidal wave of outrage porn was unleashed to crash ashore here and across the internet. Turns out, as is now clearly becoming a habit for Greenwald, that it was all just more "truthy" bullshit -- oh, yes, his partner was detained . . . but it was because Greenwald was using him as a mule to illegally shuttle stolen national security documents.

"The moral? As usually, the lesson is that virtually anything Glenn Greenwald says on NSA matters is either a gross exaggeration or outright bullshit. At this point, only a fool would take anything he says seriously."

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

[Eric J in MN]

76. Where did he advertise it? NT

NT

[treestar]

78. exactly and so he could play the victim again

He was the one going on about family and friends, but David was not just a spouse here, he was a participant. This incident proves for once and for all that it's about Greenwald and his love of attention and drama. It's practically a soap opera at this point.

[DevonRex]

175. Yes. $$$ Everybody knows Britain has tough laws on this.

Last edited Wed Aug 21, 2013, 08:25 PM - Edit history (1)

They can pretty much do whatever they want or think they need to do. This is another PR stunt. Greenwald, Miranda and The Guardian all knew what would happen and welcomed it. $$$

Sorry, Miranda can't say he didn't know, either. That's dumb. Greenwaldcan't act outraged. That's dumber. Especially considering the fact that Mr. Miranda looks perfectly able to take care of himself. Bradley Manning he's not.

ETA: Why the hell does my autocorrect change Greenwald to Greenwood half the time and not the other half? This is infuriating!!!!!

[truebluegreen]

188. What is "this" that Britain has tough laws on?

Terrorism? or inconvenient Journalism?

[DevonRex]

192. Free speech in general. Terrorism, too.

For instance, it's much easier to win libel and defamation suits in Britain than it is here. They also have tougher laws on hate speech. And the government can watch people 24/7 there with their cameras everywhere. Anti-terrorism laws are written more loosely, like the one under which Mr. Miranda was detained and questioned, so that the government has more leeway.

[truebluegreen]

193. Actually I know that.

I was attempting to highlight the fact that they detained Miranda under a terrorism statute for 5 minutes less than the 9-hour limit after which they needed to charge him or let him go, and then asked him nothing about terrorism.

So apparently it wasn't about terrorism, was it, no matter how tough their laws are.

[DevonRex]

194. My point was the deliberate vagueness of the law.

It allows for detention and questioning pretty much whenever the government says it's necessary. That's the main criticism of it. The Guardian was aware of it. So was Greenwald.

[RetroLounge]

49. Nice dog whistle

and why do you want to FUCK Greenwald?

He already has a partner.

Obvious Troll is Obvious.

RL

[silvershadow]

53. quit feeding them. nt

[Luminous Animal]

61. Miranda is Greenwald's spouse AND partner. You are infantalizing a half of that partnership.

[Luminous Animal]

66. As you can see, you've only managed to garner 5 recs for this pathetic propaganda.

You are not dealing with idiots here.

[SwampG8r]

92. he is indeed dealing with idiots

look how they come to support this dribbling pile of crap and repeat his obvious trollery
again its the same names every time
and one of them actually got mad in this thread to be called a Reagan democrat
Reagan must be spinning in his grave to be associated with such inherent fascism

[treestar]

77. I agree, though maybe the young man wanted to be involved

It's probably very exciting to be in the middle of it. That's why these egoists do it.

He got to be in the news - people know his name now.

[bowens43]

79. blah blah blah blah blah.....etc

[Octafish]

80. I can't believe a DUer would disparage Freedom of the Press.

Information is what makes democracy possible.

[myrna minx]

89. It's surreal. With this tack, these Duers would be outraged that the My Lai massacre, Watergate,

Pentagon Papers and Tuskegee experiment were ever exposed and the families of the journalists that received the leads and "stolen documents" are "fair game" for harassment by any government.

[Octafish]

91. It must be a new way of thinking. ''If I don't know about something, it can't be real.''

Opposite of democracy. Opposite of the enlightenment, for that matter.

Well said, myrna minx. And it's why My Lai, Watergate, the lies that led to Vietnam, the Tuskegee and radiation experiments keep happening over and over again.

The Buddha said the root of all suffering -- the root of sin -- is ignorance.

[myrna minx]

140. The insistence that Miranda was trafficking in "stolen" information is

based upon pure speculation, yet it's now been spun - here of all places - as truthy "fact". One Duer in this thread referred to Greenwald as "almost sociopath" based upon the poster's own appeal of emotion for speculative motives that the poster invented *for* Greenwald. Bizarre.

[QC]

96. My Lai makes LBJ look bad!!!

I just love him! He's dreamy!!!

[myrna minx]

111. No one looked so smart in Haggar trousers!

[QC]

122. And have you seen his dogs???!!!??

[Octafish]

117. Guy did give NSA the benefit of the doubt.

http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB132/tapes.htm

[Little Star]

82. This OP is pretty lame.

[stevenleser]

85. Good point. Using anyone that one might care about this way shows callous disregard for them.

Good OP.

[Octafish]

94. And you call yourself a 'pundit' and 'progressive'?

http://www.opednews.com/author/author75.html

Have you even read the First Amendment?

[stevenleser]

95. I call myself a human being who wouldn't do that to someone I cared about.

I gave no opinion relating to law or rights.

That wasn't even a good try.

[Octafish]

108. No. The issues are democracy and freedom of the press.

The OP is using pathos to deflect and smear. You going along with it, and a reading of your published work, demonstrate you side with the state.

http://steveleser.blogspot.com/

[stevenleser]

112. Not under this OP they aren't. I'm happy to discuss them at any time though, as you are well aware

but I wont hijack a thread/OP to do it, as you have here.

[Octafish]

114. This is a discussion board.

Discussion is what it's for.

When you examine all the facts and all the context there is only one conclusion to which one can come. The actions of Snowden, Manning, Assange and Greenwald were wrong and do not make sense.

SOURCE: http://steveleser.blogspot.com/

Your words, not mine.

[stevenleser]

116. That's right. That means I can call you out for thread/OP-jacking. You dont want to stay on topic

and it is clear why. This looks bad for Greenwald so you dont want to talk about it.

[Octafish]

120. No. It looks bad on the UK and US governments who don't like freedom of the press these days...

Despite in the USA, anyway, freedom of the press being the law of the land.

As for hijacking the thread, me pointing out your lack of understanding of that basic principle -- and siding with the state over the basic principle of democracy -- is critical for understanding.

[stevenleser]

125. Again, the reason you dont want to address the point in the OP is obvious. nt

[Octafish]

128. The OP called Miranda Greenwald's ''lover.''

That is a loaded term. Journalism 101.

Why you didn't bring that up says a lot, but not as important as the point that you don't have a clue about why Greenwald, Assange, Manning, Snowden and the rest who've stood up to the secret government are more important than any law cited by Bush or Obama.

[Bluenorthwest]

151. Steve was running about DU calling him Greenwald's 'bf'. BF.

Also 'boyfriend'. These diminishing words are a constant and a standard. Steve would NEVER call out loaded language when he himself lines up to spew it hot and fast. I took particular issue with 'bf' for various reasons.

[HardTimes99]

121. Your denial of agency to Miranda says quite a bit about your belief system, though. Do you

think Greenwald somehow tricked or seduced Miranda into being detained? For all you know, Miranda volunteered without Greenwald even asking. For all any of us know, Greenwald and Miranda had a lengthy heart-to-heart talk before the fact (just as most married couples would do) and jointly decided Miranda would travel to meet Poitras. IOW, Greenwald may not have 'done' anything; you don't know and you're projecting onto the Greenwald-Miranda relationship your pre-existing prejudices, whether they be against Greenwald or against homosexuals (or both).

[stevenleser]

124. I'm not denying him agency anymore than I am denying it to my mother, adult daughter or SO

I'm not, under any circumstances, asking any of the above to courier stolen information for me from the CIA/NSA/FSB/Chinese Intel/MI6. etc.

[HardTimes99]

126. That's my point. You don't KNOW that Greenwald asked. If you believe Miranda has 'agency,' then

you must concede that he might have volunteered, just as we'd concede that possibility to any loving heterosexual relationship. Instead, you posit that Greenwald 'did' something to Miranda, as though Miranda is a child or infant, incapable of acting as a fully-realized adult.

[cali]

142. just the fact that you claim something was done to Miranda is creepy as hell

you haven't a clue as to what their relationship is and yet you happily make unfounded conclusions. This assumption that Miranda is a puppet or some passive victim, is weird.

Oh, and your comments here have convinced me that you have no business representing liberals- not even on Fux News where you've done a rather lackluster job the times I have seen you.

[MannyGoldstein]

98. "our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, ...

and that cannot be limited without being lost."
-Thomas Jefferson

[Capt. Obvious]

90. Your concern for his "lover" is noted

and totally taken as serious.

[stevenleser]

100. It's not concern, and I don't think the OP would characterize it as such. I'm not concerned for

Miranda either. But I CAN note how cold-blooded it would be to involve someone I cared about in trafficking stolen documents that belong to one of the worlds major intelligence agencies.

Would you do that? Serious question. Would you have your child, mother or significant other do that for you?

[Capt. Obvious]

101. I love the games you play

[stevenleser]

104. Oh sure, and the snark about the OP having 'concern' isn't game playing. Nice try. nt

[Capt. Obvious]

107. Your concern over the OP's concern is noted

Nice try.

[stevenleser]

110. I'n not concerned and the OP isn't concerned. But you knew that.

Nope, not even a nice try.

[Capt. Obvious]

119. I know that

Neither of you give a crap about Miranda other than to further your "side's" view regardless of how despicable it is. But you two are not the only cheerleaders for this.

Have fun with your semantics games.

Maybe I'll see you on tv.

[Oilwellian]

123. Can you explain...

how the UK government knew he was traveling with NSA documents, and if true, why is he free now?

[Luminous Animal]

145. "Stolen documents". Really Steve. I thought you were the type to

stick with the facts. You have no idea what Miranda was carrying.

[Vinnie From Indy]

105. LOL!

"British Government would have been all over whoever carried these on their person."

Does that mean you are OK with that?

[stevenleser]

106. You first. Would you give stolen CIA or NSA documents to your child/mother/Significant other to

carry internationally for you when they know you were in possession of them?

[Vinnie From Indy]

130. Well, your question begs others to be answered first.

How would the GCHQ know prior to detaining Miranda what was in his possession?

Was Miranda detained solely because he had contact with Greenwald and Poitras?

If the GCHQ was spying on Greenwald and Poitras and did know that Miranda was carrying stolen documents, why was he not arrested? If we are to believe that the transport of these documents is such a danger to the national security of Great Britain why was Miranda freed and not charged with a crime?

Since the Guardian was paying for the plane tickets, I think a strong argument could be made that Miranda was working for the newspaper on this story in conjunction with Greenwald. This is no different than thousands of other journalists that have assistants and secretaries and such.

Trying to make this into a "how could Greenwald be so uncaring and mean to his partner" debate is an obvious, amateurish and desperate ploy to reframe the debate away from the monumental issues raised by the Snowden affair. That might work in Freeperville or any number of other places on the 'Net, but it will not be that effective here on DU. People here are too smart to be distracted by that red herring.

Cheers!

[Le Taz Hot]

109. This is one ugly thread

and I can't imagine being filled with that much hatred for anyone or anything. Seriously, poster, seek help.

[stevenleser]

113. Thread/OP-jacking will do that. The OPs point is spot on. Many folks want to change the subject

because the truth is this looks really ugly for Greenwald.

[Caretha]

137. No

The "truth is" this looks really ugly for stevenleser for supporting this OP.

See post #136

[Bluenorthwest]

149. Word.

Really revolting. I'm very happy to see the many great responses to both the OP and the OP's in thread rep.

[Caretha]

157. The NSA/Snowden/Greenwald

debate on DU has really done the job of separating the "Wheat from the Chaff" IMO.

[HardTimes99]

127. Your post implies that Miranda is an infant or child, incapable

of deciding for himself what his involvement will be. That is a genteel form of homophobia. (Were their relationship heterosexual and Miranda female, it would be a genteel form of sexism.)

[Whisp]

169. 'genteel form of homphobia'...

oh for fuck sakes.

whether Miranda volunteered, got bamboozled or was asked to do this it is on Greenwald's fat little head that Miranda got into trouble at the airport.

the attempts to erase this major fact is hilarious.

I am sure the vast majority here would Not place their family or loved ones in that situation, as the OP says and it is a very good question why GG would do that (omg, I said GG, I'm a homophobe!). But this is too uncomfortable for the SnowGlenn uber patriots so they have to make shit up about secret handshake homophobia and calling Miranda a child...

jesssuz.

[HardTimes99]

179. No, my friend. It is on the UK's Customs and Immigration Enforcement's head that Miranda

"got into trouble" at the airport.

Let's take your logic and play it out a little further, shall we? Following the inauguration of President Santorum in January 2017, you come crying to us here when your spouse or significant other is detained for 9 hours and held incommunicado at an airport while in transit. Because you posted here, your spouse or SO was detained under anti-terrorism statutes. Because you posted here, the detention of your spouse or SO will then be on your 'fat little head.'

[Whisp]

182. then be sure not to vote for Prime Minister Santorum.

logic.

[HardTimes99]

184. Whew! My post went right over your fat, little head. Allow me to put it more bluntly. Don't

come crying here, to the ACLU or to Amnesty International when your civil rights are violated. In the national security state you no longer have any rights, since you have found it convenient to dispense with them for those with whom you disagree. And the funniest part about it is it will all be on your fat, little head.

[Whisp]

186. o my, such fightin' words!

I will delete my account now because I'm not worthy to rub elbows with such patriot true bluers truth to power wordmeisters such as you. You and your little fat head are the protectors of the realm of all that is good in the world.

[City Lights]

135. I miss UNREC. nt

[Caretha]

136. Congratulations

You have just put up the vilest post I've ever read on DU since my daily sojourn here in the past 12 years.

Not only is it blatantly homophobic, you've also managed to be misogynistic at the same time.

How many gay/lesbian men & women have served in our armed forces risking their lives since the beginning of this country for the so called purpose of "defending our freedom". I loved my husband and father, should I have stopped them from serving in WWII & Viet Nam....or how about my cousin, she was a nurse who served in Viet Nam, her husband didn't & he served too.

Did you know that many women dressed as men and enlisted in the American Civil war to be with their husbands?

Do you believe that only straight white males are able to take risks and make those type of decisions?

There's a lotta wrong about this post....

But there is much much more wrong about you.

[cthulu2016]

138. +1 The OP is an amazing window into a twisted perspective

[Luminous Animal]

146. +1

[leftstreet]

156. +1 I wouldn't miss his posts4anything

[NCTraveler]

141. Not the biggest Greenwald personality fan...

But how do you know the level of importance this has to his lover. His partner might feel this is of extreme importance and was more than willing to take the risk.

"If you want to talk about the NSA regulations, I am more than happy to talk about them.

If you want to talk about Greenwald - FUCK HIM!"

AND THAT IS WHY I STARTED AN OP ALL ABOUT GREENWALD DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[great white snark]

144. Greenwald needed material for chapter 9.

Coming soon to Amazon!

[Marr]

147. The Rec list for this embarrassing post is hilarious.

[ZombieHorde]

152. My wife is a nurse.

Her job sometimes has her working with people with incurable, contagious diseases. The money she brings home benefits our family. Should I try to stop her from going to work since she may be exposed to much more danger than Miranda ever was? Should everyone married to a nurse, doctor, CNA, EMT, dentist, etc., try their best to convince them to find a new line of work?

[Jesus Malverde]

158. golf clapp for trolliness....nt

[Rex]

160. I can't believe anyone on DU would stoop so low as to

make a thread like this.

[kelliekat44]

163. A thread like what? The truth? nt

[backscatter712]

164. Yeah, I've got a question for Skinner:

What is this troll still doing here?

The pizza service sure has been slow lately.

[nadinbrzezinski]

172. Shit stir...

[Hissyspit]

178. Yup.

[Hissyspit]

176. Bullshit. Miranda is not an infant.

[idwiyo]

185. This OP is absolutely disgusting and homophobic to boot.

[revmclaren]

187. Great post.

And as for HATERS on DU screaming that calling Greenwald 'GG' is being homiphobic'... I use GG for Greenwald because his name IS GLENN GREENWALD initatials GG...and not for his being gay. I suppose using Barack Obama's initials BO instead of his full name means he has Body Odor and I should scream bloody murder every time someone out in internet land dosent type out his full name and accuse those posters of being racist or some other such bull! All the screaming 'HOMOPHOBE' on DU recently is an attempt at the suppression of negative replies to GREENWALD posts. Very blatant, childish and NON-LIBERAL! And since you dont even know MY sexual preference and its NONE OF YOUR F%$#ING BUSINESSES, Feel free to reply to this post with hate and derision and I will feel free to IGNORE you!

That's Democracy!

[backscatter712]

189. Thou doth protest too much methinks. n/t

[revmclaren]

190. And you...Oh tin foiled hat one and Sh$t stirrer

Are now ignored!

[backscatter712]

191. I am ignored?