Question: Did British authorities really think Greenwald's partner was a terrorist, or likely to be?

[cthulu2016]

If, as a matter of fact (that is an 'if') he was detained for nine hours, did the authorities, in fact, believe that he was reasonably likely to be planning to blow up the plane, or otherwise posed a security threat to air travel by flying?

If the event happened genrally as reported, I would guess no, and that the detainment was terrorism authority used to intimidate the press, AND to intimidate a viewpoint, AND to perform a warrant-less search for evidence having nothing to do with blowing up a plane, AND an attempt to seize material and discover information and generally take ownership of a person and his effects because terrorism laws made it convenient.

And this is, of course, a system that all right-thinking people defend because Greenwald and Nader and Count Chockula are the real enemy... as opposed to, say, people who would use terrorism laws to threaten somebody's family just to "show the flag."

[HooptieWagon]

1. Unquestionably abuse of power.

Using "anti-terror" law to intimidate and conduct a warrantless search of a political critic. I think this further strengthens the case made by Greenwald, Snowden, et al.

[chimpymustgo]

11. The abuse of power absolutely strenghthens Greenwald and Snowden's case. These are bad actors.

And proving it at every turn.

[Downwinder]

2. State terrorism!!

[tsuki]

3. Watch Thomas Drake's video on

http://jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com/. Everyone that knew him came under fire. They were investigated, question and harassed to the point that some lost their jobs. It is chilling.

[KoKo]

19. Thanks...very timely!

[Electric Monk]

4. Of course not. It's harassment, plain and simple. nt

[malaise]

5. You're all missing the point

The term terrorism is a nice neat amorphous word defined by those who have the power so to do.
It means what they say it means on any given day. The war on terror is a privately run industry.

[Rex]

7. That is true, just like the DEA and the failed War on Drugs

which was just code for War on the Poor.

[malaise]

12. Ding ding we have a winner

although I would stress minority and poor first, then poor whites.

[Rex]

13. Absolutely I would to.

The number of young, male African Americans locked away in American prisons is proof.

[HardTimes99]

23. When the strong conduct terrorism on the weak, the strong call it 'war.' When the weak conduct

war on the strong, the strong call it 'terrorism.'

My own two cents' worth on the lexicon, remembering that Reagan called Nelson Mandela and the ANC 'terrorists' before 1985.

[malaise]

28. Anyone who challenges the status quo

is a terrorist.

[Le Taz Hot]

26. Mal, you need to use that last sentence

as a sig line or make it a bumper sticker or something. It's a POWERFUL statement!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. No. It was an obvious and hilariously hamfisted attempt at intimidation to silence whistleblowers.

Worthy of a Monty Python skit.

[sabrina 1]

8. Yes, because it has become crystal clear that those who are abusing their power DO consider

real journalists, not the Corporate Media types, to be Terrorists because real journalism is a real threat to THEIR security to their ability to continue their corruption, to use tax payer dollars and SS funds to invade other countries for profit.

None of this, I am now convinced, has been about terror at all. IT is all about Mega Corporations' ability to make huge profits and the MIC and their 'contractors' to continue to profit from war.

[KoKo]

20. The latest story about Greenwald might jar some awake.

But, then there are those who never noticed the "boxcars" going past their houses on the way to the "Detention Centers"....i.e. "Concentration Camps" until it was too late to do anything about it.

We have a small window of time to do something. The Heathrow Fisaco with Greenwald's Partner is a Wake Up Call.... We need to heed it!

[HardTimes99]

25. I take your point. Just want to point out that the 'Good Germans' did indeed notice but

politely averted their gaze, if Daniel Goldhagen's Hitler's Willing Executioners can be believed.

[KoKo]

29. Indeed...and many here and out there...

have "averted their gaze"...because the TRUTH is to unbearable to deal with. Alot of death and destruction was the aftermath.

And, that's why we are close to a Pivot Point. Or, we learn the "hard way."

[bigtree]

9. no

. . . flagrant abuse of power from Washington to Britain.

[DisgustipatedinCA]

10. Greenwald set the whole thing up, or at least that's what I heard from one poster

...who said she was going to wait for all the facts to come in before making a judgment. Don't think about it too much--it starts to hurt after awhile.

[Rex]

14. I saw that. That post wasn't pretty.

I mean, if you type you are going to 'wait for all the facts to come in' you probably shouldn't start the next sentence with a rant on 'SnowGlen'.

[dkf]

30. LOL. Haven't come across it yet.

Am awaiting burst of hilarity at the stretches made.

[UTUSN]

15. I'm awaiting severe castigation in another thread where I posted this that

David is *not* a journalist and mightn't it be possible/conceivable that a member of the GREENWALD/SNOWDEN group, who is moving about among members of the group just could be being a "mule" of the stolen security data?!1 COULD it be?!1

And is poor pitiful GREENWALD suggesting that anybody and everybody linked to him ought to receive wholesale immunity from questioning?!1 After all, the whole affair and its known cast of characters has not exactly been kept a secret by GG.


Proceed...

[burnodo]

27. It's like Michelle Obama being subjected to undue questioning

Because she's the president's wife

[bvar22]

32. Exlain to us a little more about Greenwal;d NOT being a Journalist.

I believe the Editors and Owners of the newspaper that prints his work would disagree with you.

[UTUSN]

37. Well, I was referring to David not being a journalist, but now that you bring it up,

I can't question GREENWALD, now can I

[sweetloukillbot]

51. Although Miranda's trip was paid by the Guardian - so that makes that a bit muddy too n/t

[leveymg]

34. It could be that you're smuggling plutonium in your pants, UTUSN, and need to be stopped, detained

and interrogated for 7 hours in some windowless airport back room because someone you know may be an accused enemy of a foreign state.

You might well be a terrorist, so . . . proceed, indeed.

[magical thyme]

42. 9 hours. they're talking about reducing it to 6 in the future, to make the law less ugly.

He was detained for 9 hours, no lawyers allowed to be present and no right to remain silent.

[leveymg]

49. What's an hour or two when you're really having fun?

[cthulu2016]

35. Um... being a "mule" for NSA files isn't terrorism

[UTUSN]

38. Really?!1 When I a simple enlisted swore myself into the military I was told

that any breach I committed would land me in the brig for several lifetimes. And I complied. But that's just me.

[dsc]

39. but it isn't terrorism

which is the one and only crime that the law in question (permitting that questioning) is supposed to apply to. Not spying, not theft, not document smuggling.

[UTUSN]

40. O.K., let's go to the other T-word, "traitorism" n/t

[dsc]

41. that also isn't covered

one, and only one, crime is covered under this law which removes the right against self incrimination, and that crime is terrorism.

[UTUSN]

44. Isn't transmitting/conveying material useful to Enemies of the State terrorism? n/t

[cthulu2016]

45. No, of course not.

How could it be?

[UTUSN]

46. Let me count the ways: Whether "terrorism" is VIOLENT or UNDERMINING

VIOLENT or UNDERMINING are methods. The GOAL is the same.

[cthulu2016]

48. "Undermining" is clearly not terrorism unless we are talking about undermining

a bridge's foundations.

Not everything bad or illegal is terrorism.

[UTUSN]

50. "Undermining" can mean "overthrowing" - O.K. we're not gonna get anywhere. n/t

[dsc]

57. likely not

terrorism is a pretty specific crime and spying isn't it.

[Progressive dog]

16. Question, why not intimidate Grenwald himself?

eom

[KoKo]

18. He maybe hasn't flown through Heathrow since this all started.

So the way to get him was through his partner.

[Progressive dog]

55. If Glenn is in Britain, they could just pick him up,

unless only the British at the airport are our puppets.

[magical thyme]

43. because it inflicts more fear to go after an innocent associate or bystander.

For example, somebody verbally attacks you, you shrug it off. They go after your partner or your child or your dog...and you go nuts with (out)rage.

[Progressive dog]

56. It inflicts fear for Glenn's partner to be questioned,

he's pretty easy to scare I guess.

[magical thyme]

58. 9 hours with no contact, no lawyer, and the threat of terrorist charges

As I wrote above, it's always worse when they go after loved ones.

[Progressive dog]

59. 9 hours, that would be like an

hour of overtime.
This nine hour detention thing is UK law, not USA. Miranda took the trip on behalf of a newspaper that illegally had classified data. According to Reuters, the Guardian was forced to destroy that data by the UK government. Then they send Miranda to meet with another presumed possessor of the data and he returns carrying encrypted files.
Glenn now wants to pretend that he didn't expect Miranda to be detained.
Glenn was just trying to make himself the anti-NSA hero. It's not about Snowden, it's about Glenn.

[UTUSN]

47. He claims it's ALL ABOUT HIM!1 n/t

[Thinkingabout]

17. Stolen laptops, eh. Seems like some type of trend starting here. Probably the officers who seized

Will soon be flying to Hong Kong for medical treatment and maybe on to Moscow.

[Demo_Chris]

21. Yet another thing that demands a real answer. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

22. I would find that implausible, Interesting how the authoritarians apologists are defending it though

[Le Taz Hot]

24. We all know what this was

(well, those of us who choose to use the working part of our brains) and we all know who/what was behind it. Despicable!

[leveymg]

31. The UK "Antiterrorism" Act is something much broader- it's used to carry out all manner of intrusive

state actions that would otherwise have never been approved by a majority vote in Parliament. Rather like our PATRIOT Act, it needs to be revisited and torn out by its roots where it is misused, as in this case, to harass dissidents (and their friends) and to strangle traditional freedoms.

[FarCenter]

33. Schedule 7 does not require any suspicion of terrorism or any other reason

The authorities can search and interrogate any one in the international zone of an international airport for up to 9 hours for any reason or no reason.

As a non-UK citizen in the non-UK area of the airport, the traveler must avail himself of whatever hospitality the UK extends.

[struggle4progress]

36. ... Mr Miranda ... had spent the previous week in Berlin visiting Laura Poitras ... who has .. been

helping to disseminate Mr Snowden's leaks. The trip had been paid for by The Guardian, Mr Greenwald said ...
Snowden journalist's partner detained under terror law
August 19, 2013 - 10:22AM
Charlie Savage
http://www.smh.com.au/world/snowden-journalists-partner-detained-under-terror-law-20130819-2s5vz.html

[railsback]

52. Spot on

The Guardian made no mention of this, nor would they have, if not for Savage.. but such vital revelations are falling on deaf ears.

[struggle4progress]

53. The Guardian disclosed it but surrounded it with text emphasizing the "partner" aspect

[railsback]

54. The Guardian didn't mention that Miranda was a paid courier

until after Savage wrote his story, and Greenwald made no mention of it, either, instead 'writing':

It’s bad enough to prosecute and imprison sources. It’s worse still to imprison journalists who report the truth. But to start detaining the family members and loved ones of journalists is simply despotic. Even the Mafia had ethical rules against targeting the family members of people they felt threatened by.

Other than the fact that Greenwald doesn't even know anything about mafias, its certainly nowhere near ethical for 'journalists' to be intentionally vague. In fact, its downright immoral.